Dismissed

Surinder Pal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Punjab & Haryana HC17 Sept 2014CRA-S/365/2010

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal challenged the conviction of Surinder Pal under the Prevention of Corruption Act for accepting a bribe in a CBI trap. The High Court upheld the conviction, rejecting arguments regarding procedural flaws, lack of corroborative call details, and claims of a false trap motivated by rivalry.

What did the court decide?

The criminal appeal was dismissed; conviction and sentence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, were upheld.

Surinder Pal Vs Central Bureau of Investigation — Corruption | Punjab & Haryana HC (2014)

¶1

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶2

-1-

¶3

In the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh

¶4

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010 Date of Decision: 17.9.2014

Surinder Pal

......Appellant

Versus

Central Bureau of Investigation

¶9

.......Respondent

¶10

CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE SABINA

¶11

Present: Mr. R.K.Handa, Advocate for the appellant.

¶12

Mr. Sumeet Goel, Advocate for the respondent-CBI.

¶13

¶14

SABINA, J.

¶15

Prosecution story, in brief, is that Mohan Singh and his companion apprehended Rajinder Kumar, brother-in-law of complainant Rajesh Kumar on 18.8.2007 from Ludhiana and produced him in Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh on 19.8.2007. On coming to know about the said fact, complainant also reached the police station. Appellant Surinder Pal met the complainant and pressurized Rajinder Kumar to return the money to Mohan Singh and other persons. Appellant threatened the complainant that he could be sent to jail along with his brother-inlaw and demanded ` 2500/- as bribe for not registering the case against them. On 21.8.2007, appellant made a phone call to the complainant at his residence. Complainant talked to the appellant on his mobile phone. Appellant again reiterated the demand of bribe. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal

¶16

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶17

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶18

-2-

¶19

FIR was registered by Central Bureau of Investigation (' CBI ' for short). Inspector Ravinder Kush (hereinafter referred as ' Inspector ') decided that a trap be laid and joined two witnesses Data Ram and Gurcharan Singh. Complainant was introduced to the members of the raiding party. Complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of ` 500/- each to the Inspector. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder (' P-Powder ' for short) and were returned to the complainant with a direction that he should hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. Demonstration qua working of P-Powder was shown to the witnesses. Data Ram was instructed to act as a shadow witness and was directed to accompany the complainant and give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant and the shadow witness met the appellant outside his office room. Appellant enquired from the complainant if he had brought the money. Complainant replied in the affirmative. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant and after counting the same, the appellant kept the same in his right pant pocket and went back to his office chamber. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, the Inspector along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pant pocket of the appellant and the same were taken in possession. When the right pant pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, colour of the solution turned pink.

¶20

After completion of investigation and necessary

¶21

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶22

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶23

-3-

¶24

formalities, challan was presented against the appellant.

¶25

Charge was framed against the appellant under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' for short).

¶26

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses during trial.

¶27

Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, after the close of prosecution evidence, prayed as under:-

¶28

“I am innocent. I did not demand any such bribe as projected. I did not accept the bribe, as alleged. No recovery has been effected from me. Since I told Rajinder Kumar and his companions i.e. complainant, Satish Kumar and the wife of Rajinder Kumar that in case they will not return the money received by them from Randhir Singh son of Harpal Singh etc. amounting to Rs. 1,75,000/- which were taken by them for arranging job for his son then a case of cheating shall be registered against Rajinder Kumar. Accordingly, the parties compromised and writing was executed to that effect which was attested by the wife of Rajinder Kumar, Rajesh Kumar and Rajinder Kumar and complainant had also signed the same. Similarly Harpal had also signed the said compromise. Rajinder Kumar, Satish Kumar and complainant got offended on this and I was involved in this false trap in connivance with CBI officers. CBI officers who were nursing grudge against me as I as well as Baljit Singh, SI of Police Station 39 Chandigarh were

¶29

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶30

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶31

-4-

¶32

investigating rape case registered against CBI Inspector named Subhash Kundu and others and another complaint against CBI Inspector named Sudhir was also marked for inquiry on 21.7.2007 to me. So on receiving a false complaint from the complainant, CBI officers took chance to involve me in this false trap and accordingly I was lifted by CBI officials from police station and later on evidence was fabricated against me in the CBI office, where memos were fabricated and got signed from the alleged witnesses.”

¶33

Appellant examined four witnesses in his defence.

¶34

Trial Court vide judgment/order dated

¶35

21.1.2010/22.1.2010 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

¶36

Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that prosecution had failed to prove its case. In fact, the FIR in question had been registered on account of inter-departmental rivalry. Rajinder Kumar, material witness, had not been examined during trial. Prosecution had failed to establish that the appellant had demanded bribe money from the complainant. No call details had been proved on record to establish that there had been any communication between the appellant and the complainant. In fact, the entire raid proceedings were doubtful. Complainant had stated that he had reached the CBI office in an auto rickshaw but thereafter had gone to the place of raid on a motor cycle. From the statement of the shadow witness, it was not established that he had transmitted the pre-determined signal to the raiding party.

¶37

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶38

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶39

-5-

¶40

Learned counsel for the CBI, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Complainant had duly established that appellant had demanded and accepted bribe money from him. In fact, there was no interdepartmental rivalry as suggested by the learned counsel for the appellant. The sanction for prosecution had been granted by the competent authority.

¶41

Complainant Rajesh Kumar, while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has deposed as per the prosecution case. The said witness categorically deposed that he was present in the police station with his brother-in-law Rajinder Kumar on 19.8.2007. Appellant had told Rajinder Kumar that he had to return 1,75,000/- to Harpal Singh before 19.9.2007 and complainant was asked to give surety in this regard. Documents in this regard were prepared at the instance of the appellant. Complainant proved on record Ex. PW-1/1, surety signed by him. He also proved on record the undertaking given by his brother-inlaw. He further deposed that after the compromise, he was stopped by the appellant and a demand of 2500/- was made. He further deposed that appellant threatened him that in case the bribe money was not paid, he would register a case against him and his brother-in-law.

¶42

Thus, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the factum of demand of bribe had not been proved, is without any basis. Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-1, has duly proved that the demand of bribe to the tune of ` 2500/- was made by the appellant from him. Therefore, non-examination of Rajinder Kumar is not fatal to the

¶43

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45prosecution case as the demand of bribe in the present case was I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶44

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶45

made by the appellant from complainant Rajesh Kumar.

¶46

So far as the raid proceedings are concerned, complainant has categorically deposed that he had handed over five currency notes in the denomination of ` 500/- each to the Inspector and the same were returned to him after they were treated with some powder. He was also shown the demonstration of working of the powder. On direction issued by the appellant, he reached Police Station Sector-39, Chandigarh with the bribe money. He entered the police station with Data Ram on his motor cycle. Then he met the appellant on the first floor. He handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. On receipt of signal from Data Ram, Inspector along with the remaining raiding party reached the spot. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pant pocket of the appellant as he had kept the same in his right pant pocket after counting the same.

¶47

The statement of the complainant with regard to raid and recovery of the tainted currency notes from the right pant pocket of the appellant, is duly corroborated by PW-2 Data Ram, shadow witness, PW-3 Gurcharran Singh, official witness and PW5 Inspector Ravinder Kush.

¶48

The argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the raid proceedings were rendered doubtful as the appellant had stated that he had come to the CBI office in an auto rickshaw but had reached the office of the appellant on his motor cycle, is without any force. Although, complainant has deposed in his examination-in-chief that he had gone to the office of the appellant, on the day of raid, on his motor cycle and in his crossexamination, he deposed that he had gone to the CBI office in an GURPREET SINGHauto rickshaw, but the said discrepancy, is not sufficient to 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶49

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010 -7-

¶50

disbelieve the prosecution case. Complainant as well as the other material witnesses were duly cross-examined at length but their statements qua authenticity of the raid proceedings could not be shattered.

¶51

There is also no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the call details had not been proved on record to establish any connection qua demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant. Complainant has categorically deposed that the appellant had called him at his residence and had left a message that he (complainant) should talk to him. Then on 21.8.2007, complainant contacted the appellant on his mobile phone No. 94170-96054. He also deposed that he had called the appellant from the mobile phone No. 99881-80670 of his brother-in-law Rajinder Kumar. Ex. PW-7/3 is the call detail of the mobile phone of the appellant. The said document corroborates the statement of the complainant to the effect that on 21.8.2007, telephone calls had been made by the complainant to the appellant.

¶52

The case of the complainant further is that compromise was effected between Rajinder Kumar and Randhir Singh. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that since the compromise had already been effected, there was no occasion for the appellant to have demanded bribe from the complainant. However, the said submission made by learned counsel for the appellant, is without any force as it is evident from the statement of PW-10 Head Constable Lakhmir Singh that the complaint of Randhir Singh was marked to the appellant. However, the said complaint of Randhir Singh was not received with the report from the appellant as per

¶53

GURPREET SINGHrecord. Thus, it was established from the testimony of PW-10 that 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶54

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010

¶55

-8-

¶56

the complaint qua the dispute between Randhir Singh and Rajinder Kumar was marked to the appellant. However, appellant had not sent the file back with his report. Therefore, it is evident that the file in question was still in possession of the appellant and he had the occasion to demand bribe from the complainant.

¶57

There is also no force in the argument raised by learned counsel for the appellant that the shadow witness had not given the pre-determined signal to the Inspector at the time of raid and complainant had also given a missed call to the Inspector. PW-2 Data Ram deposed that he had been directed to act as a shadow witness and accompany the complainant and give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. The said witness categorically deposed that he had given a signal to the Inspector after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. Complainant has also deposed that he had given a missed call to the Inspector after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. The fact that complainant had also given a missed call to the Inspector after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant, does not make the prosecution case doubtful. Rather, both the complainant as well as the shadow witness gave signal to the Inspector after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand.

¶58

There is also no force in the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had been falsely involved in this case due to inter-departmental rivalry. Appellant has examined witnesses in his defence to establish that he was investigating the rape case against Subhash Kundu, Inspector, CBI and an enquiry had also been marked to the GURPREET SINGHappellant in a complaint against Sudhir, Inspector, CBI. Although, 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

¶59

Crl. Appeal No. S-365-SB of 2010 -9-

¶60

the complaints were marked to the appellant to enquire the allegations levelled against Inspector Subhash Kundu and Inspector Sudhir but there is nothing on record to suggest that the said officials had procured a false complaint from the complainant to falsely involve the appellant in this case. There is nothing on record to suggest that the complainant had any intimacy with the CBI officials and would have, thus, joined hands with the CBI officials to falsely involve the appellant in this case.

¶61

Although, appellant was having an unblemished service record but the fact remains that he was caught red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant in a raid organized by the CBI. Prosecution had been successful in proving its case against the appellant. In these circumstances, the learned Special Judge had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

¶62

No ground for interference by this Court is made out.

¶63

Dismissed.

¶64

(SABINA) JUDGE

¶65

September 17, 2014 Gurpreet

¶66

GURPREET SINGH 2014.09.24 16:45 I attest to the accuracy and authenticity of this document Chandigarh

Surinder Pal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Surinder Pal v. Central Bureau of Investigation

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

Ut of Chandigarh Vs Sidharth @Nitin

Jonny @Manjit Singh & Ors. Vs State of Punjab & Anr.

Gurpal Singh and Ors. Vs State of Punjab and Ors.

Ashok Kumar Vs State of Haryana

Krishan Chand Jagota Vs State of Punjab

Vishal Satinder Sood & Anr. Vs Neena Sabharwal