Dismissed

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Punjab & Haryana HC20 Mar 2014CRA-S/1781/2008

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal challenging conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the High Court upheld the trial court's finding that the appellant took illegal gratification. The court found the prosecution evidence cogent and dismissed the appeal.

What did the court decide?

The appeal is dismissed, and the trial court's judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld.

(O&M) Mohinder Singh Vs State of Punjab — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶2

Criminal Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008 (O&M)

¶3

Date of decision:20.3.2014

Mohinder Singh

...Appellant v.

State of Punjab

...Respondent

Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Inderjit Singh

¶9

.....

¶10

Present: Mr. Manjit Singh, Advocate for the appellant.

¶11

Mr. K.S. Aulakh, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab for the respondent-State.

¶12

Inderjit Singh, J.

¶13

Appellant-Mohinder Singh has filed this appeal against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 9.9.2008 passed by learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he has been held guilty and convicted for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as Act'). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months for the offence under Section 7 of the Act. He has also been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of `5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for

¶14

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶15

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [2]

¶16

three months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act. All the substantive sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

¶17

The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 20.7.2005 at about 11.00 a.m., Mandip Singh came to the house of Karamjit Kaurcomplainant and asked for scooter. In the meanwhile, Gurdip Singh entered the house after scaling the wall and started a scuffle with Mandip Singh threatening to kill him. He asked Karamjit Kaur to bolt the door from outside. Karamjit Kaur insisted that if Gurdip Singh had to quarrel with Mandip Singh, both should go outside the house. Gurdip Singh took out a Kirpan'. Karamjit Kaur intervened, as a result of which she received one Kirpan' blow on her hand. Mandip Singh was also given pushes and caused injuries. Thereafter, Gurdip Singh fled away from the spot. Karamjit Kaur and Mandip Singh were admitted in Khamanon Hospital and were medically examined. The local Police of Police Post, Kheri Naudh Singh failed to take any action against Gurdip Singh, who is son of the then Sarpanch. He rather self-suffered the injuries and got himself admitted in the hospital. It is also the case of the prosecution that Mohinder Singh, ASI, who was posted at Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh, was pressurizing the complainant party to enter into a compromise. At this, the accused threatened to implicate the complainant party in a false case. He demanded `10,000/- from Babu Singh in this case. On refusal of Babu Singh to pay illegal gratification, he threatened to implicate his son-in-law Mandip Singh by registering a case against him. A sum of

¶18

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶19

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [3]

¶20

5,000/- was taken by ASI Mohinder Singh on 30.7.2005 from Babu Singh in the presence of Nachhattar Singh. He was demanding another sum of 5,000/- for favour in the case. On the basis of application Ex.P.C moved by Karamjit Kaur, inquiry was marked to DSP, Khamanon, who vide his report dated 17.8.2005 found the allegations levelled against the accused-appellant as correct. The accused-appellant was arrested on 9.3.2006 and after completion of investigation and obtaining necessary sanction, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

¶21

On presentation of challan, the trial Court finding prima facie case against accused, framed charges for the offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

¶22

In support of its case, the prosecution examined PW-1 Satinder Pal Singh, DSP, Khamanon, who mainly deposed regarding conducting the inquiry on the complaint filed by Karamjit Kaur and also proved his inquiry report Ex.PA. PW-2 Babu Singh deposed as per prosecution version. He deposed that Mandip Singh is his son-in-law. He also stated that both the injured Mandip Singh and Karamjit Kaur were got admitted in Civil Hospital, Khamanon and they remained admitted in the hospital upto 26.7.2005. Then ASI Mohinder Singh-accused reached at Civil Hospital, Khamanon on receipt of report from the Civil Hospital regarding the admission of the injured. In the hospital, above said ASI Mohinder Singh demanded `10,000/- from him, otherwise he would register case against them. Then the accused came to his house and

¶23

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶24

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [4]

¶25

demanded 5,000/- and he gave 5,000/- to him. He also deposed that he gave 5,000/- to accused in the presence of Nachhattar Singh. He also deposed regarding his affidavit Ex.PW.2/A. He also stated that he took some money from Nachhattar Singh in order to meet the demand of 5,000/- made by the accused. PW-3 HC Gurmeet Singh deposed regarding bringing the record of FIR No.104 dated 5.8.2005 registered for the offences under Sections 323 and 324 IPC at Police Station Khamanon against Gurdeep Singh and investigation of this case was conducted by ASI Mohinder Singh accused present in the Court from 5.8.2005 to 9.8.2005 and challan of this case was prepared on 10.8.2005 by SHO Palwinder Singh which was presented in the Court on 24.8.2005. He also proved the copy of FIR No.104, which is Ex.PB. PW-4 Karamjit Kaur also deposed the same facts as per prosecution version. She also deposed regarding the complaint Ex.PC to SSP, Fatehgarh Sahib and her affidavit Ex.PD. PW-5 Nachhattar Singh also supported the prosecution version and stated that on 30.7.2005, accused demanded `5,000/- from Babu Singh. Babu Singh gave the said amount to the accused. He also deposed regarding his affidavit Ex.PE. PW-6 Dr. Charanjit Singh mainly deposed regarding conducting of medico-legal examination of Karamjit Kaur and Mandip Singh on 20.7.2005 and deposed regarding injuries found on their persons. PW-7 Kuljit Singh mainly deposed regarding the sanction order Ex.PN. PW-8 Gian Singh, Junior Assistant, SSP Office, Fatehgarh Sahib brought service book of ASI Mohinder Singh to prove his posting at Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh. PW-9 HC Sahib Singh brought the

¶26

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶27

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [5]

¶28

Roznamcha maintained by Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh. Ex.PQ is copy of DDR No.15 dated 3.7.2005, according to which ASI Mohinder Singh had joined as ASI at Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh. PW-10 Mandip Singh also deposed as per prosecution version. PW-11 Jaspal Singh, DSP Vigilance, Fatehgarh Sahib is the Investigating Officer, who deposed regarding the investigation conducted by him in this case.

¶29

At the close of prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and was confronted with the evidence of the prosecution, but he denied the correctness of the evidence and pleaded himself as innocent. He stated that he was falsely implicated by the Police due to party faction prevailing in Village Mohan Majra, Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh, Police Station Khamanon.

¶30

In defence, no evidence has been led by the accused.

¶31

The learned trial Court after going through the evidence and material on record, vide its impugned judgment and order, convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant for the offences as mentioned above.

¶32

During the pendency of the appeal Mohinder Singh-appellant died. Vide order dated 24.8.2012, the petitioner, heir of the deceased, was allowed to contest the appeal. The order dated 24.8.2012 reads as under:-

¶33

“Notice of the application to Advocate General, Punjab.

¶34

The petitioner is permitted to contest the appeal being heir of deceased entitled to his estate including pensionary benefits.

¶35

The main case at Sr. No.463 in the Regular list, be

¶36

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶37

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [6]

¶38

listed for final hearing on 20.9.2012.”

¶39

At the time of arguments, learned counsel for the appellant argued that Mohinder Singh, ASI has been falsely implicated in the present case due to party faction in the village. There is no cogent evidence on the record regarding demand of the bribe money nor the money has been recovered from him. He has also argued that no currency notes have been recovered from the appellant. Therefore, he argued that even in the complaint Ex.PC given by Karamjit Kaur to Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib, there is no mention regarding payment of this money. Therefore, he argued that the appeal is liable to be allowed and the appellant should be acquitted.

¶40

On the other hand, learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State argued that the case of the prosecution has been duly proved. The PWs have consistently deposed regarding the prosecution version. The demand and payment has been duly proved. There are no material contradictions or improvements in the statements of the PWs. Therefore, he argued that there being no merit in the appeal, it should be dismissed.

¶41

I have heard learned counsel for the appellant and learned Assistant Advocate General, Punjab appearing for the respondent-State and with their assistance have gone through the evidence on record minutely and carefully.

¶42

From the record, I find that in the present case, Babu Singh, who is father-in-law of Mandip Singh-injured has deposed that `10,000/-

¶43

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [7]

¶45

has been demanded by ASI Mohinder Singh from him and he has paid 5,000/- to ASI Mohinder Singh as the accused was threatening to register case against them. He has specifically stated that he has given 5,000/- to the accused in the presence of Nachhattar Singh. PW-5 Nachhattar Singh also deposed regarding the payment of money to ASI Mohinder Singh on 30.7.2005. PW-2 Babu Singh in his cross-examination has stated that the day on which the accused demanded the money, he gave the money on the same day to the accused. He stated that when he reached at the house, he called Nachhattar Singh and paid the money to the accused. From this cross-examination, it cannot be held that the money was paid on the same day when it was demanded in the hospital. Rather, it is in the evidence that the accused had raised the demand of money for the first time on 23.7.2005 at 11.30 a.m. As per the version of the prosecution, 5,000/has been paid to ASI Mohinder Singh in the present case in the presence of Nachhattar Singh on 30.7.2005. PW-5 Nachhattar Singh deposed that on 30.7.2005, the accused demanded 5,000/- from Babu Singh and Babu Singh gave the said amount to the accused. He also deposed regarding the threat given by the accused to Mandip Singh for lodging a case against him.

¶46

I have gone through the cross-examination also of this witness. He stated that he has given 2,000/- to Babu Singh when he visited his house at 5.35 p.m. It is in his statement that he did not know whether Babu Singh handed over the amount of 5,000/- to the accused or not, but he had gone in the opposite room after taking money from him.

¶47

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶48

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [8]

¶49

He had seen Mohinder Singh entering the room but the amount was not paid to him by Babu Singh in his presence. Mohinder Singh did not make any demand from Babu Singh in his presence. He also stated in crossexamination that Babu Singh told him that Mohinder Singh was demanding money from him. He had filed the affidavit as told by Babu Singh because he had given 2,000/- to Babu Singh. Whole statement of the witness is to be read together. One line from the statement cannot be read in exclusion. The perusal of the statement of PW-5 Nachhattar Singh supports and corroborates the prosecution version and does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution version. From the statement of PW-5, it is clear that Nachhattar Singh had paid 2,000/- to Babu Singh, so that Babu Singh could pay 5,000/- to ASI Mohinder Singh. PW-2 Babu Singh in examination-in-chief has also stated that he had taken some money from Nachhattar Singh in order to make payment of 5,000/- to the accused. These PWs have given affidavits on 1.8.2005 before the registration of FIR regarding the occurrence of causing injury to Mandip Singh and the affidavits of these witnesses also support and corroborate the prosecution version. Otherwise also, statement of PW-4 Karamjit Kaur further supports and corroborates the prosecution version. The money was paid by Babu Singh and not by Karamjit Kaur. Therefore, if this fact was not mentioned in the complaint Ex.PC by Karamjit Kaur regarding payment of `5,000/- as bribe money, it will also not create any doubt in the prosecution version. This complaint Ex.PC was given by Karamjit Kaur on 1.8.2005 i.e. after one/two days of the payment of

¶50

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶51

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [9]

¶52

`5,000/- by Babu Singh to ASI Mohinder Singh. The accused-appellant has not shown any enmity or motive of these PWs to falsely implicate him. There is no reason or ground to disbelieve the statements of these witnesses. The version of these PWs is also duly supported by PW-6 Dr. Charanjit Singh, who medico-legally examined Mandip Singh and Karamjit Kaur. The version regarding the occurrence, which took place on 20.7.2005, is further supported and corroborated by the statements of the PWs. As per the evidence on record, the occurrence took place on 20.7.2005 and the injured were admitted in the hospital and they remained admitted in the hospital at Khamanon till 26.7.2005. It is also in the evidence that ASI Mohinder Singh, who was in-charge of the Police Post Kheri Naudh Singh, at that time, came to the hospital but had not registered any FIR regarding that occurrence. This conduct of ASI Mohinder Singh itself shows the motive for demanding the bribe. When the complaint Ex.PC. was filed on 1.8.2005, which was received by the office and the inquiry was marked to DSP on 2.8.2005 and then the FIR was registered. There is no explanation by the accused as to why he has not registered the FIR. This fact also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Further, on the basis of investigation of the case, the inquiry conducted by DSP, which is Ex.PA, also supports and corroborates the prosecution version. Otherwise also, there is no reason or ground as to why the Police official of the rank of DSP would falsely give the inquiry report against him. The demand of the bribe and the payment has been duly proved by the PWs. From the evidence produced by the prosecution,

¶53

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

¶54

Cr. Appeal No.S-1781-SB of 2008(O&M) [10]

¶55

in no way, it can be held that it is a false case and the appellant is innocent, nor it can be held that a reasonable doubt exists in the prosecution version.

¶56

Therefore, from the above, I find that the prosecution has duly proved its case by leading cogent evidence beyond reasonable doubt. The impugned judgment passed by the Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib is correct and as per law, which has been given after appreciating the evidence in right perspective and by giving well reasoning as per evidence.

¶57

Therefore, from the above discussion, this appeal is dismissed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by the learned trial Court are upheld. As the appellant has already died, therefore, there is no need for taking action regarding the remaining sentence.

¶58

March 20, 2014. (Inderjit Singh) Judge hsp

¶59

Parmar Harpal Singh 2014.05.15 11:20 I attest to the accuracy and integrity of this document Chandigarh

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

(O&M) Mohinder Singh v. State of Punjab

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Kuldeep Kaur and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Anr.

Krishan Kumar Vs State of Punjab etc.

Vijay Kumar Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Manjit Singh Vs State of Ut Chd.

Desh Raj and Anr. Vs State of Punjab

Ganga Sahai M. Pathak Vs State of Punajab