Dismissed

State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh

Punjab & Haryana HC1 May 2013CRM-A/639/2011

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an MA under Section 378 CrPC, the Single Judge dismissed the State of Punjab's application for leave to appeal against the acquittal of a Patwari allegedly involved in corruption. The Court observed that prosecution witnesses had turned hostile and denied their statements, preventing proof of the alleged demand and acceptance of gratification, and thus held the petitioner had no case upon follo

What did the court decide?

N/A

State of Punjab Vs Joginder Singh — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2013)

¶1

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶2

-1-

¶3

IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH

¶4

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011 Date of Decision: 01.05.2013

State of Punjab

.....Petitioner

Versus

Joginder Singh

.....Respondent

CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PARAMJEET SINGH

¶11

Present: - Mr. Gurinderjit Singh, DAG, Punjab. Mr. S.C. Chabra, Advocate, for the respondent. *****

¶12

PARAMJEET SINGH, J. (ORAL)

¶13

The instant application has been filed under Section 378(3) Cr.P.C. for grant of leave to appeal against the impugned judgment dated 5.5.2011 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, whereby respondent has been acquitted of the charge framed against him under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

¶14

Brief facts of the case are that complainant Kabal Singh got his statement recorded before DSP Talwinderjit Singh of Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur, to the effect that he is agriculturist by profession. They are three brothers. Jaswant Singh was one of the brothers, who was having four killas of land. Jaswant Singh had contracted second marriage. Said Jaswant Singh died four months ago and his wife had also died. Jaswant Singh was having a son and two daughters. During his lifetime Jaswant Singh executed a registered 'Will' in favour of his son Satnam Singh at Makhu. On the basis of said 'Will' in favour of his son Satnam Singh, land of Jaswant Singh was to be inherited by Satnam Singh.

¶15

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶16

-2-

¶17

Since son of Jaswant Singh was minor aged about 16/17 years, so the complainant used to look after the household work. On 2.12.2008 he went to the office of Halqa Patwari Joginder singh and handed over the 'Will' as well as death certificate of Jaswant Singh and requested him to enter mutation on the basis of 'Will'. The Patwari kept the 'Will' and death certificate with him and assured that he will enter the mutation. Thereafter, he met the Patwari 2/3 times but he had been putting off the matter on one pretext or the other. On 12.12.2008 he met the respondent in his office at Makhu and asked him about the mutation and then the respondent said that such like works are not done like this and he demanded illegal gratification of 6,000/-. On the request of the complainant, deal was settled at 4,000/-. The complainant said that he is not having 4,000/- with him, whereupon the respondent said that he may come on 15.12.2008 at any time in his office with 4,000/- and then he would enter the mutation. The complainant was not willing to pay bribe and after making promise with the respondent he came to his village and met Kalga Singh of his village to whom he narrated about the illegal demand of the respondent. Kalga Singh suggested him to get such like corrupt officials caught by Vigilance. On 15.12.2008 complainant along with Kalga Singh went to the office of Vigilance Bureau and met the DSP and got recorded his statement Ex.PW7/1. The DSP then called two official witnesses, namely, Arun Kumar Dhawan, Engineer in Agricultural Department and Lakhwinder Singh, ASDC of PWD (B&R) Department, Ferozepur and they were joined in the investigation. The complainant then handed over eight currency notes of the denomination of ` 500/- each to the DSP. The numbers of the said

¶18

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶19

-3-

¶20

notes were written on the entrustment memo Ex.P1. The DSP then applied phenolphthalein powder on the said currency notes and returned the same to the complainant with the direction to hand over the said currency notes to the respondent. The DSP also instructed the complainant not to shake hand with the respondent-Patwari before or after handing over the currency notes. Kalga Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness. DSP made his endorsement on the statement of complainant and sent the same to the police station, on the basis of which FIR was registered against the respondent. Thereafter, DSP along with the raiding party left for raid. On reaching near the office of the accused, they parked their vehicle at some distance. Complainant and shadow witness were sent to the office of the accused after repeating the instructions. After some time Kalga Singh gave signal to the police party, whereupon the raiding party immediately rushed to the office of the accused and DSP introduced himself to the accused. Solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in which firstly hands of both the official witnesses were got washed but the colour of the sodium did not change and then hands of the accused were dipped in the said solution, whereupon colour of the solution turned light pink. The solution was poured into a nip and sealed with the seal bearing impression 'TS' and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P2. On search of the accused said tainted eight currency notes of the denomination 500/- each were recovered from front pocket of the shirt worn by him. The numbers of the said tainted currency notes tallied with the entrustment and then the currency notes were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P3. On personal search of the accused currency notes of 12,000/-, one mobile

¶21

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶22

-4-

¶23

set, one pen of black ink and one I. Card were recovered, which were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P5. Thereafter, one shirt was arranged and then the accused was asked to put off his worn shirt. The front pocket portion of the said shirt was washed in new prepared solution of sodium carbonate and colour thereof turned pink. The said solution was also put in a separate nip and after sealing the same, it was taken into possession. The shirt was also converted into a parcel and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.P4. The Rojnamcha register MO-1 and mutation register MO-2 maintained by the respondent-Patwari were taken into possession vide memo Ex.P6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded, respondent was arrested and after completing necessary steps for investigation, the accused was challaned under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

¶24

Upon representation of challan and on appearance of the accused-respondent, copies of the documents relied upon by the prosecution were supplied to the accused-respondent. Accordingly, charge was framed against the accused-respondent under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶25

The prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as seven witnesses.

¶26

Thereafter, statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All the incriminating circumstances were put to the accused. He denied the same and pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶27

The learned Trial Court, after appreciating evidence on record acquitted the accused-respondent of the charge framed against him.

¶28

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶29

-5-

¶30

Hence, this application for grant of leave to appeal.

¶31

I have heard learned counsel for the petitioner and gone through the impugned judgment also.

¶32

All of the star witnesses of the case of prosecution deserted it and expectantly so. PW3 Kabal Singh, complainant has not supported the prosecution story. He has stated that police got his signatures on some blank papers in order to take action against the accused. He further stated that the accused never demanded nor accepted ` 4,000/- to enter mutation of inheritance from him. No recovery of tainted notes was effected from the accused in his presence. PW5 Kalga Singh, shadow witness, has also deposed in the same terms and not supported the prosecution case.

¶33

The learned counsel for the petitioner has not been able to point out any infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment either on facts or on law which would call for interference by this Court.

¶34

The issue where the complainant and shadow witness turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case at all, is no longer res integra as the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Banarasi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010(2) RCR (Crl.) 553 , in identical circumstances, however, believing the recovery to be genuine, wherein the complainant and the shadow witness turned hostile, has held in para 16 and 17, as under:-

¶35

“ 16. In light of the statement of two hostile witnesses PW2 and PW4, the demand and the acceptance of illegal gratification alleged to have been received by the accused for favouring PW2 by recording the khasra girdawaris in the name of her mother cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law. We make it clear that it is only for the two witnesses having turned hostile and they having denied their statement made under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code despite confrontation, that the accused may be

¶36

CRM-A-639-MA of 2011

¶37

-6-

¶38

entitled to acquittal on technical ground. But, in no way we express the opinion that the statement of witnesses including official witnesses PW10 and PW11 are not accepted by the Court. Similarly, we have no reason to disbelieve the recovery of Ex.P-1 to P-4 vide Ex.PD.

¶39

17. In the light of this we are of the considered view that the judgment of this High Court convicting the accused for the offences with which the accused was charged cannot be sustained in law.”

¶40

Taking into consideration the facts of the case in hand and

¶41

following the ratio of judgment of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, rendered in Banarasi Dass's case (supra), the petitioner has no case. As such, this application for leave to appeal is dismissed.

¶42

(Paramjeet Singh) Judge

¶43

May 01, 2013 R.S.

State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Punjab v. Joginder Singh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Mohinder Singh Vs Sardara Singh & Ors.

Baldev Singh and Anr. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Savita Vs Hari and Anr.

Baljinder Singh Vs State of Punjab

Gurmej Singh @ Geja Vs State of Punjab

Abid Sheikh & Anr. Vs State of Punjab