Hon'ble KUMAR, J.— 1. The present appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India is directed against the final judgment and order of conviction dated 20.11.2002 passed by the learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant has raised challenge to the impugned judgment, inter alia, but primarily on the following grounds:

(a) There is no evidence to prove demand and voluntary acceptance of the alleged bribe so as to attract the offence under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (For short, ‘the Act’). Reliance has been placed by the judgment of this Court in the case of C.M. Girish Babu vs. CBI, Cochin, High Court of Kerala, (2009 (3) SCC 779).

(b) The High Court as well as the trial Court have passed an order of conviction despite the fact that there was serious contradiction between the statements of the prosecution witnesses. And in fact, there was no cogent and reliable evidence to support the charge against the appellant. Even the recovery has not been proved in accordance with law. These factors clearly justify the benefit of doubt in favour of the appellant and thus entitling the accused of judgment of acquittal.

(c) The punishment awarded to the appellant is unreasonably excessive. The appellant has faced the agony of trial and thereafter other proceedings arising therefrom for the last 20 years. In these circumstances, the appellant has even faced great hardship having lost his livelihood which adversely affected the future of his family members. While relying upon the judgment of this Court in the case of Aditya Nath Pandey vs. State of U.P. (2000(9) SCC 206), it is contended that the sentence undergone would suffice and meet the ends of justice. Of course, this argument has been advanced without prejudice to the above contentions.

2. On behalf of the State, it has been argued that the judgment of conviction and sentence is duly supported by the oral and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has been able to bring home the charge against the accused. The ingredients of Section 5(2) of the Act as well as Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘the IPC‘) are duly satisfied. The appellant being a public servant has not to indulge in demanding bribe. Thus, no leniency is called for in favour of the accused. In order to examine the merit or otherwise the contentions raised, it is important for us to refer to the basic facts as emerged from the records, giving rise to the present appeal.

3. The appellant was newly posted as patwari in Village Piruwala. One Pritam Kaur had agricultural land at Village Piruwala. Her daughter, namely, Sat Pal Kaur was informed during 1986 that Khasra Girdawaris of Pritam Kaur’s land had been recorded in the name of Jit Singh and others as tenants by the previous Patwari. Smt. Sat Pal Kaur took up the matter with those tenants who admitted that the Khasra Girdawaris has been wrongly recorded by the Ex-Patwari in their favour. She also obtained no-objection on the application moved by her mother which was submitted to the Tehsildar Chachhrauli. The application was moved for the purposes of incorporating the necessary changes at the time of the next Khasra Girdawaris in the coming season. Smt. Sat Pal Kaur contacted the village Patwari (appellant herein) in the Kharif season for recording Khasra Girdawaris in favour of her mother during the period of October, 1986. It is further the case of the prosecution that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 900/-(rupees nine hundred) but that deal was struck at Rs. 400/-(rupees four hundred) for making the requisite changes, in the presence of Gurmej Singh, a taxi driver, whose taxi had been engaged by Sat Pal Kaur while visiting the appellant. Sat Pal Kaur contacted Shri Hari Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Jagadhri at Bilaspur where Shri S.K. Joshi, Sub-Divisional Executive Magistrar, Jagadhri, was also pre

Click Here to Read the rest of this document