GURJANT SINGH Vs STATE OF PUNJAB
Bench: DIPAK MISRA,PRAFULLA C. PANT
Case number: Crl.A. No.-000955-000955 / 2015
Diary number: 5269 / 2015
Advocates: SHREE PAL SINGH Vs
Page 1
Non-Reportable
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 955 OF 2015 (@ Special Leave Petition (Crl.) No. 2383 of 2015)
Gurjant Singh … Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab … Respondent
J U D G M E N T
Prafulla C. Pant, J.
This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated
24.12.2014, passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana
in Criminal Appeal No. 2065-SB of 2005, whereby the
criminal appeal is dismissed, and order dated 5.11.2005,
passed by the Sessions Judge, Faridkot, convicting and
sentencing the appellant Gurjant Singh under Sections
7/13(2) of the Prevention Act, 1988, is upheld.
Page 2
Page 2 of 11
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
perused the papers on record.
3. Prosecution story in brief is that complainant
Harpal Singh (PW-1) was President of Rice Millers
Association, Kotkapura. Appellant Gurjant Singh was posted
as Technical Assistant with Food Corporation of India (for
short “the FCI”). On 29.5.2003, complainant, after holding a
meeting with other rice millers, met the appellant regarding
supply of 20 consignments of advance rice belonging to ten
shellers to the FCI, on which he (appellant) demanded rupees
one lakh as illegal gratification for approving the quality of
the rice. The complainant reluctantly agreed to pay
Rs.50,000/- on next day, i.e. 30.5.2003. The complainant
disclosed about the same to Sandip Kataria (PW-2) who
advised him to complain to the Vigilance Department.
Thereafter, they complained the matter to Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot. On the
basis of said complaint, a First Information Report No.22
dated 30.5.2003 was registered, and a trap was laid by the
Page 3
Page 3 of 11
Vigilance Department. Jetha Ram (PW-3), District Welfare
Officer, Faridkot, and Surjit Singh, Junior Assistant in the
office of the District Welfare Officer, were requested to be
official witnesses. Hundred currency notes of denomination
of Rs.500 were produced by the complainant in the office of
Vigilance Department, in order to use the same to trap the
appellant. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to the
currency notes by the Vigilance Officers and the numbers of
the currency notes were jotted down in memorandum (Ext.
P8). Tainted currency notes were then handed over to
complainant Harpal Singh (PW-1) so that he may offer the
same to the appellant in response to the demand made by
him. Sandip Kataria (PW-2), shadow witness, was directed to
hear the conversation between the appellant and the
complainant, and to give signal to the raiding party. Baldev
Singh Dhaliwal (PW-11) Deputy Superintendent of Police,
Vigilance, led the team along with other personnel of the
Department, and the witnesses. On 30.5.2003, he along with
the complainant and the witnesses went to Mahan Laxmi
Rice Mills, Kotkapura where the amount was to be handed
Page 4
Page 4 of 11
over to the appellant. The complainant and witnesses were
dropped at some distance from the mill, and raiding party
remained outside the mill. After some time, the shadow
witness (Sandip Kataria) gave a signal to the raiding party on
which it rushed to the mill. Appellant Gurjant Singh, who
was found in the mill, was given identity by Baldev Singh
Dhaliwal, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance (PW-11),
and the appellant was made to dip his both hands in the
glass of sodium carbonate solution on which the colour of the
solution turned to light pink. The solution was then put into
a clear nip (M02) with seal bearing impression “BS”,
whereafter signatures of the witnesses were taken on it.
Thereafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police asked the
appellant to hand over the tainted currency notes accepted by
him. The appellant produced a packet of Rs.50,000/-
consisting of hundred currency notes each of denomination of
Rs.500/- from the pocket of his trousers. After the numbers
of the currency notes got tallied with the numbers mentioned
in the memorandum earlier prepared, the appellant was
arrested. After investigation, charge sheet against accused
Page 5
Page 5 of 11
Gurjant Singh, relating to offences punishable under Section
7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was
submitted to the trial court.
4. Learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot, on 20.2.2004,
after hearing learned counsel for the parties, framed charge
against accused Gurjant Singh (appellant) relating to offences
punishable under Section 7/13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988, to which he pleaded not guilty and
claimed to be tried.
5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 Harpal
Singh, complainant, PW-2 Sandip Kataria, shadow witness,
PW-3 Jetha Ram, District Welfare Officer, official witness,
PW-4 Ashok Kumar Bhandari, PW-5 Suresh Kumar, PW-6
Mohinder Pal, Personal Assistant to Deputy Commissioner,
PW-7 Constable Harmail Singh, PW-8 Head Constable
Swaran Singh, PW-9 Madan Lal, PW-10 Head Constable
Kirpal Singh and PW-11 Baldev Singh Dhaliwal, Deputy
Superintendent of Police (vigilance).
Page 6
Page 6 of 11
6. The prosecution evidence, both oral and
documentary, was put to the accused under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in reply to which he
pleaded his innocence and stated that the evidence adduced
against him was false. In defence, the appellant got
examined DW-1 Anil Kumar, Assistant Manager, DW-2 Murli
Dhar, Auditor, and DW-3 Darshan Singh, Assistant Manager,
Accounts. Learned Sessions Judge, after hearing the parties,
found that charge against accused Gurjant Singh (appellant)
is proved and, after hearing on sentence, sentenced him to
rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and
directed to pay fine of rupees one lakh under Section 7/13(2)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and also directed
that in default of payment of fine, the convict shall undergo
rigorous imprisonment for further period of three months.
7. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated
5.11.2005, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Faridkot,
criminal appeal was preferred by the convict before the High
Page 7
Page 7 of 11
Court, and the same, by the impugned judgment, was
dismissed.
8. On going through the evidence on record, we find
that PW-1 Harpal Singh, complainant, has proved the
demand of rupees one lakh, made by the appellant, for
accepting and approving the advance rice to be supplied by
the Shellers. He has further proved that after some talks the
appellant agreed to accept Rs.50,000/-. He has given
detailed narration of the facts as to how the matter was
complained to the Vigilance Department and trap was laid,
and as to how the hundred tainted currency notes of
denomination of Rs.500/- were accepted by the appellant, on
which the Vigilance team caught the appellant red handed,
and recovered the amount from him. The statement of PW-1
Harpal Singh is fully corroborated by PW-2 Sandip Kataria
and PW-3 Jetha Ram, District Welfare Officer.
9. PW-11, Baldev Singh Dhaliwal, Deputy
Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Faridkot, has
also narrated the entire operation. He has proved the
Page 8
Page 8 of 11
complaint made by PW-1, and the First Information Report
(Ext.PA/2), registered as directed by Baljinder Singh Grewal,
Superintendent of Police. He further proved sanction (Ext.
PM) for prosecution of appellant, and also proved the report
(Ext. PP) from Forensic Science Laboratory, received on
completion of investigation.
10. We have also gone through the statements of
defence witnesses. But considering quality of evidence of
prosecution witnesses, we are of the opinion that amount of
Rs.50,000/- cannot be planted, and the defence version
pleading innocence cannot be accepted in the facts and
circumstances of this case. The statements of defence
witnesses are of little help to discredit the testimony of the
prosecution witnesses. As such, keeping in mind the
presumption to be taken under Section 20 of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988, we are not inclined to interfere with
the conviction recorded by the trial court under Section
7/13(2) of the Act, and affirmed by the High Court. We think
Page 9
Page 9 of 11
it proper to mention here few decisions of this Court, which
reflect what approach should be adopted in such matters.
11. In Narendra Champaklal Trivedi v. State of
Gujarat1, this Court, in almost similar facts, has observed as
under: -
“22. In the case at hand, the money was recovered from the pockets of the appellant-accused. A presumption under Section 20 of the Act becomes obligatory. It is a presumption of law and casts an obligation on the court to apply it in every case brought under Section 7 of the Act. The said presumption is a rebuttable one. In the present case, the explanation offered by the appellant-accused has not been accepted and rightly so. There is no evidence on the base of which it can be said that the presumption has been rebutted.”
12. In Mukut Bihari and Another v. State of
Rajasthan2, referring to various cases, this Court has made
following observations: -
“13. This Court in C. Sharma v. State of A.P. [(2010) 15 SCC 1], after considering various judgments of this Court including Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra [(1979) 4 SCC 526] and Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra [(2000) 5 SCC 21] held that acceptance of the submission of the accused that the complainant’s version required
1 (2012) 7 SCC 80 2 (2012) 11 SCC 642
Page 10
Page 10 of 11
corroboration in all circumstances, in abstract would encourage the bribe taker to receive illegal gratification in privacy and then insist for corroboration in case of the prosecution. Law cannot countenance such situation. Thus, it is not necessary that the evidence of a reliable witness is necessary to be corroborated by another witness, as such evidence stands corroborated from the other material on record………..”
13. Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that
the sentence awarded by the trial court is harsh, and the
same may at least be reduced to the period already
undergone by the appellant. It is further submitted by him
that the sentence of imprisonment awarded by the trial court
is much more than the minimum sentence prescribed under
law as it stood in 2003. It is relevant to mention here that
the minimum sentence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 has been enhanced by Act
No. 1 of 2014 with effect from 16.1.2014, but incident in
question relates to the period prior to said date. Considering
the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view
that the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of two
years and fine of rupees one lakh would meet the ends of
justice in the present case.
Page 11
Page 11 of 11
14. Accordingly, the sentence of imprisonment is
reduced from period of three years to a period of two years
without interfering with the sentence of fine, recorded by the
trial court. With this modification in the sentence, the appeal
stands disposed of.
……………….....…………J. [Dipak Misra]
.……………….……………J. [Prafulla C. Pant]
New Delhi; July 24, 2015.