Back
2004 Supreme(P&H) 521
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.S.Saron, J.
Amrik Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 514 of 1995,
Decided On : MAY 5, 2004
The prosecution must prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the testimony of witnesses must be reliable and corroborated.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Appeal against conviction under Section 13(2) of the Act - Summary of Acts and Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for demanding a bribe for providing a certified copy of a sale-deed. The complainant, a document writer, had applied for the copy to get a mutation sanctioned, which had already been done. The appellant denied the bribe, claiming the money was thrust upon him.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The court noted discrepancies in the complainant's testimony, including his suppression of being a document writer and the already sanctioned mutation. The court also highlighted the lack of corroboration and the non-examination of key witnesses.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand for a bribe, the credibility of the witnesses, and the lack of corroboration and evidence.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for the prosecution to prove the guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, especially in cases under the Prevention of Corruption Act. It highlighted the unreliability of the witnesses' testimony and the lack of corroboration and evidence.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellant of the charges due to the prosecution's failure to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
S.S.Saron, J.
1. This is an appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (`Act for short) against the judgment and order dated 25.8.1995 passed by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Case F.I.R. No. 167 dated 4.10.1993 (Ex. PB/2) for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act was registered at Police Station Zira on the statement (Ex. PB), of the complainant Baldev Singh son of Rattan Singh (PW- 1). The complainant in his statement, stated that he is resident of Village Lahora and does agriculture work. On 20.5.1993, the complainant through sale deed purchased land measuring 11 kanals 15 marlas from Gurcharan Singh son of Surat Singh, Jat resident of village Lahora. For getting mutation of this land, he in the month of June gave a copy of the sale deed to the Revenue Patwari of his area. The Patwari retained the original sale-deed and stated hat after entering the mutation he would get it sanctioned. The complainant further states that he met the Patwari of his area two-three times regarding the sanction of mutation but he kept putting him off. Then the complainant asked the Patwari as to why his mutation was not being sanctioned and the Patwari stated that, in fact, the sale-deed had been lost. The complainant then on 1.10.1993 made an application in the office of Sub-Registrar, Zira for getting a copy of the sale-deed. The Sub Registrar marked the application to the Registration Clerk, Zira. Then the complainant went with the application to Amrik Singh (appellant), who was the Registration Clerk, Zira and met him. The latter started saying that the work of the complainant was quite substantial and that for preparation of the copy and getting it signed from the Sub Registrar, he would take Rs. 200/- as bribe. On this, the complainant stated that he had earlier even made the payment with great difficulty and that his work was legal. Besides, he could not give so much bribe. It is stated that, however, on request the appellant agreed to do the work of the complainant on taking bribe of Rs. 100/-. The complainant stated that at that time he did not have the money. Amrik Singh (appellant) then stated that during the holidays he has to go out and he would prepare the copy of the sale-deed and after getting it signed from the Sub-Registrar keep it with him and on Monday in the afternoon, the complaint should come along with the bribe money and by paying the same take the copy. The complainant further stated that under compelling circumstances he agreed to pay bribe of Rs. 100/-. The complainant then reached the Bus Stand, Zira and he met Ajaib Singh (PW-2) son of Amar Singh, caste Jat, resident of Jhaner and he started asking the complainant as to what was the matter. The complainant then said that he had made an application for getting a copy of his registered sale-deed for which Amrik Singh, Registration Clerk (appellant) is asking for Rs. 100/- as bribe for giving the copy. The complainant further stated that he had made a false promise for paying the amount on 4.10.1993 in the afternoon and that he did not want to pay the bribe. Further that on 4.10.1993 i.e. on Monday in case he (Ajaib Singh) comes along with the complainant to the Vigilance Office, Ferozepur, then this corrupt person can be got arrested. Ajaib Singh (PW-2) agreed to come to the Vigilance Office and on the day of the occurrence, i.e., 4.10.1993 Ajaib Singh (PW-2) aforesaid appeared before the Vigilance Officials and two Rs. 50/- notes amounting to Rs. 100/- were also presented before the Vigilance Officials and it was requested that action be taken. The statement was read over to the complainant Baldev Singh and was attested by Babu Singh, Inspector
