2009 Supreme(P&H) 767
PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT
Sham Sunder, J.
Yashpal Khanna and another - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 34-SB of 1996.
Decided On : 22 April, 2009
For the Appellant :Mr. V.K. Chaudhary, Advocate.
For the Respondent No. 1:Ms. Manjari Nehru Kaul, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab.
For Central Bureau of Investigation : Ajai Kaushik, Standing Counsel.
The burden of proof on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and the court's reliance on witness testimonies and recovery of tainted currency notes to establish guilt.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 7 - Summary of Acts and Sections: The court discussed the application of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, which deals with the offence of public servant taking gratification other than legal remuneration. The court highlighted the key legal provisions and their interpretations, emphasizing the burden of proof on the accused to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Fact of the Case:
The accused, a public servant, demanded gratification for passing a bill related to procurement of paddy. The prosecution presented evidence of the accused demanding and accepting the bribe, and the recovery of tainted currency notes from the accused's possession.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence presented by the prosecution, including witness testimonies, recovery of tainted currency notes, and the accused's failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for the same.
Issues: The issues included the competency of the authority according sanction for prosecution, the credibility of witness testimonies, and the rebuttal of statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanction accorded by the Senior Regional Manager was valid, the discrepancies in witness testimonies were minor and insignificant, and the accused failed to rebut the statutory presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence rendered by the trial Court were upheld.
Sham Sunder, J. - This appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 14.12.95, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Patiala, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellant) and sentenced him, as under :
Name of the accused (now appellant) Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded
1 2 3
Yaspal Khanna Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. The facts, in brief, are that on 04.03.93, the accused was working as Inspector T.A.-II, Food Corporation of India, Chobal District, Amritsar. He was deputed at Mandi Bhakna Kalan for the kharif procurement 1992-93, vide office order dated 31.08.92. He was also authorized to pass the bills for payment to the supliers from whom the paddy was procured. Jodh Singh, prosecution witness, was a partner of firm M/s J.H. Trading Company. This firm was running the business as commission agent. In September, 1992, Yash Pal Khanna, accused, was working in Bhakna Kalan Mandi, for purchasing paddy on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. 2350 bags of paddy were sold by the firm W J.H. Trading Company to the Food Corporation of India. Payment in respect of 81 bags, was not made to the firm, since the bill was not passed by the accused, in respect thereof. Jodh Singh, and Dhanwant Singh, prosecution witnesses, went to the accused on 03.03.93, and requested him, to pass the bill. The accused demanded Rs. 1000/-, is gratification, other than legal remuneration, for passing the bill. Jodh Singh and Dhanwant Singh, prosecution witnesses, protested that their firm was new, and they could not pay amount. The accused then reduced the demand to Rs. 600/-. Jodh Singh, and Dhanwant Singh, did not intend to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration, to the accused. They pretended that they were not having money, with them, and would pay the same, on the next day. The accused told them to come to Chobal, on the next day, in the Food Corporation of India, godown.
3. On 04.03.93, Jodh Singh, and Dhan prosecution witnesses, went to the Vigilance Office, and met Tarlok Singh, Vigilance Inspector, there. They narrated to him, that the accused who was a public servant, was demanding gratification, other than legal remuneration, from them, for passing the bill, in respect of 81 bags of paddy. Tarlok Singh, Vigilance Inspector, recorded the statement of Jodh Singh, prosecution witness, exhibit PW7/1. After admitting the same to be correct, Jodh Singh, signed it. Inder Pal Singh, was joined as a shadow witness. He was introduced to complainant Jodh Singh. Jodha Singh, complainant, produced six currency note each of Rs. 100/- denomination, before Tarlok Singh, Vigilance Inspector. Phenolpathelein powder was applied to the currency notes numbers of the tainted currency notes were noted down in the memo PW3/A. After satisfying that complainant Jodh Singh, had no other money with him, the tainted currency notes were entrusted to him. He was directed to hand over the tainted currency notes, to the accused, on demand. Inder Pal Singh, shadow witness, was directed to follow Jodh Singh, complainant, hear the conversation between him (Jodh Singh), and the accused, and after the aforesaid amount of gratification, other than legal remuneration, was demanded and accepted by the accused give signal to the raiding party. Tarlok Singh, Vigilance Inspector, appended his endorsement underneath the statement of complainant Jodh Singh and sent the same, for the registration of case. First information report, copy whereof is exhibit PW8/1, was registered in Police Station Chobal. Demonstration with regard to mixing of phenolpathelein powder, in the solution of water and sodium carbonate, and changing of its colur, into pinkish, was given to Jodh Singh, Dhanwant Singh, and Inder Pal Singh. The raiding party then proceeded to Chobal in a Zypsy. Jodh Singh, complainan