Back
1990 Supreme(P&H) 221
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
S.D.Bajaj, J.
Mohinder Singh
Versus
State Of Punjab
Criminal Appeal No. 278 of 1985,
Decided On : MARCH 29, 1990
In cases involving allegations of bribery, independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and the trap witnesses is necessary to bring home the guilt to the accused.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 5(2) - SECTION 161 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION OF COMPLAINANT AND SHADOW WITNESS - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Mihan Singh needed a copy of the jamabandi of his agricultural lands. Accused Mohinder Singh, the Halqa Patwari, demanded Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for its supply. The matter was reported to the Vigilance Inspector, who conducted a raid and recovered the tainted money from the accused's pocket. The accused was convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to provide independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and the shadow witness, who were both interested and partisan witnesses. The court also noted that the copy of the jamabandi asked for could not be used by the complainant for the desired purpose of obtaining a loan from the Land Mortgage Bank.
Issues: Whether the prosecution had established beyond reasonable doubt that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases involving allegations of bribery, independent corroboration of the testimony of the complainant and the trap witnesses is necessary to bring home the guilt to the accused. The court relied on several precedents to support this principle.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused, giving him the benefit of the doubt.
S.D.Bajaj, J.
1. Mihan Singh needed a copy of the jamabandi of his agricultural lands situated in the revenue estate of Barsat in Patiala district of Punjab State. Accused Mohinder Singh was then the Halqa Patwari. Joginder Singh son of Mihan Singh contacted the accused on 5th May, 1981 who demanded Rs. 100/- (rupees one hundred only) by way of illegal gratification for its supply. Matter was reported to the Vigilance Inspector Santokh Singh of Patiala. The Vigilance Inspector got the raid conducted after completing procedural formalities. Harchand Singh of Electricity Department was joined as shadow witness in the raid. The tainted money after being passed by Joginder Singh to the accused was got recovered from the pocket of the bushirt worn by accused at the relevant time. After completion of the legal formalities, accused Mohinder Singh Revenue Patwari of Halqa Barsat aforesaid was prosecuted u/s 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. Learned Special Judge Patiala convicted him of the commission of both the offences aforesaid and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and fined him Rs. 500/- for his conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. In default of payment of fine the accused was ordered to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a further period of three months. For his conviction under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code convicted accused was awarded rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year. Both the substantive sentences of imprisonment awarded to the accused individually on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved therefrom convicted-accused Mohinder Singh has filed Criminal Appeal No. 278-SB of 1985 in this Court.
3. I have heard Shri R. S. Rai, Advocate for the appellant, Shri P. S. Kang, Advocate for the State and have carefully gone through the entire evidence on record.
In the course of his statement under Section 313, Criminal Procedure Code, accused Mohinder Singh stated :-
"I am innocent. Kapur Chand of Banera got the land of Hoshiar Singh attached under the orders of the Court. That attachment was effected by me and that land was joint of Hoshiar Singh and father of Harchand Singh. Hoshiar Singh and Harchand Singh were aggrieved against me on that account and they nursed a grudge against me. Harchand Singh joined hands with Joginder Singh and Vigilance Inspector and falsely implicated me in this case. I did not demand bribe from Joginder Singh nor he came to me for getting any copy of the Fard. I did not accept any bribe from Joginder Singh and nothing was recovered from me. Joginder Singh is not a cultivator. No loan could have been granted on the security on the land already under mortgage".
It is not denied that Harchand Singh shadow witness is nephew of Hoshiar Singh whose landed estate was got attached by Kapur Chand. P.W. 7 Shri Sant Pal Singh, Naib Tehsildar, submitted in cross-examination:
"It is correct that loan cannot be obtained on a land, which is already under mortgage".
4. In similar circumstances it was observed by this Court in Surjit Singh v. State of Punjab, 1987(1) Recent Criminal Reports 621 ,
"In a case like this, to bring home the guilt to the accused, it has to be established by the prosecution that the accused had demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted the same in pursuance of the demand. To prove these allegations merely the statement of the complainant or the trap witnesses cannot he relied upon without independent corroboration. It has been held by the Supreme Court in Darshan Lal v. Delhi Administration, 1974(11) CLR 611, that trap witnesses in a case under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act being concerned in success of the trap, the Court should require independent corroboration of their statements before convicting the accused. The same view is expressed in
