Back
PUNJAB & HARYANA HIGH COURT
Raj Rahul Garg, J.
Jarnail Singh and Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
CRA-S-418-SB of 2005 and CRA-S-404-SB of 2005
Decided On : 07-04-2015
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Section 7 and 13(2) - Summary of Acts and Sections: Prevention of Corruption Act (Section 7, 13(1)(d)/13(2)) - The court discussed the validity of the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellants under Section 19 of the Act. It held that the sanction given by the Chairman of the Market Committee alone was not a valid sanction, as the Committee was the competent authority for both imposing penalties and granting sanction. The court cited relevant case law to support its decision. The court also discussed the evidence of demand, acceptance, and recovery of bribe money, highlighting discrepancies in witness statements and the attempt by some witnesses to help the accused. Ultimately, the court acquitted the accused/appellants due to the lack of a valid sanction to prosecute.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the accused/appellants for committing offences under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The complainant alleged that the accused demanded and accepted bribes in relation to market committee fees and ground nut sales. The accused/appellants denied the allegations, claiming a false case was registered against them. After a trial, the Special Judge, Patiala, found the accused/appellants guilty and sentenced them. The defense argued that the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellants was not valid, and the accused/appellants were entitled to acquittal.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellants, given by the Chairman of the Market Committee alone, was not a valid sanction as the Committee was the competent authority. The court cited relevant case law to support its decision. The court also discussed discrepancies in witness statements and the attempt by some witnesses to help the accused. Ultimately, the court acquitted the accused/appellants due to the lack of a valid sanction to prosecute.
Issues: The main issue was the validity of the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellants under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court also addressed discrepancies in witness statements and the attempt by some witnesses to help the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the finding that the sanction to prosecute the accused/appellants, given by the Chairman of the Market Committee alone, was not a valid sanction as the Committee was the competent authority. The court also emphasized the attempt by some witnesses to help the accused, highlighting the need for the court to examine the evidence of the prosecution to maintain confidence in the administration of justice.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the accused/appellants due to the lack of a valid sanction to prosecute, as the sanction given by the Chairman of the Market Committee alone was not valid. The court also considered discrepancies in witness statements and the attempt by some witnesses to help the accused.
1. This common judgment shall decide the aforementioned two appeals preferred by Jarnail Singh son of Santa Singh, and Prem Singh son of Bhag Singh, against judgment dated 16.2.2005, rendered by Sh. Surinder Gupta, the then Special Judge, Patiala, whereby both the appellants/accused were convicted for committing offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter to be referred as "the Act"). Vide order of sentence of the even date, both the appellants/accused were sentenced to undergo RI for 6 months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- each with default clause for undergoing RI for one month each, for committing offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act, and to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- each with default clause of RI for one month for committing offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Act.
2. Brief facts of the case are like this; that on 12.12.2001, Gurcharan Singh (PW6) gave his statement to Harbhajan Lal, DSP, Vigilance, Patiala, which is Ex. PW5/A. He stated before the police that he deals in electronics goods at Rajpura. He has been doing this business for the last 15 years. He also used to sell baked ground nuts. He used to bring ground nuts from Rajasthan and after roasting the same, sell the same. A truck loaded with ground nuts, belonging to him, came at Rajpura about 10/15 days prior to 12.12.2001. At that time accused/appellants Jarnail Singh and Prem Singh called upon him to say that composition fee of Rs.12,000/- was payable by him because he has not deposited the Market Committee fee earlier. Accused/appellants called upon him to get the license issued. On account of paucity of time, it was difficult for him to get the licence issued. As such, the accused persons asked him to pay a sum of Rs.4000/- as bribe money. Earlier Rs.12,000/- i.e. the full composition fee was demanded from him but ultimately the matter was settled for Rs.4,000/-. He paid Rs.4,000/- to Jarnail Singh. Out of this amount, a sum of Rs.2,000/- was kept by Jarnail Singh for himself whereas Rs.2,000/- was given by him to Prem Singh. Accused/appellants were saying that they were Mandi Supervisors. It was further stated that after receipt of the aforesaid amount of Rs.4000/-, accused/appellants called upon him to pay 2% of Market Committee Fee in advance to them as and when vehicle loaded with ground nuts belonging to him again reaches at his destination.
3. On 10.12.2001, a truck loaded with ground nuts belonging to him came. On the next day, both the accused/appellants visited him demanding their share as a truck loaded with ground nuts had already reached the destination. At that time Rs.3,000/- were demanded by the accused/appellants. After some bargaining, the amount was settled as Rs.2,000/- as bribe. The complainant promised to pay the aforesaid bribe money on the next day. However, complainant's friend Pritpal Singh met him and during the course of discussion, he had forbidden the complainant from paying Rs.2000/- to the accused/appellants and suggested to report the matter to the Vigilance Department, which was near Gurudwara Dukh Niwaran Sahib, Patiala. On 11.12.2001, a telephonic call was given to Vigilance Department, Patiala. On 12.12.2001, the complainant and Pritpal Singh visited the Vigilance Office. Patiala. There, they narrated the entire story to DSP Harbhajan Lal. His statement was recorded by the DSP and the complainant put his signatures on the same.
4. DSP Vigilance sent Inspector Mohinder Singh for calling independent witnesses. Arun Vashishta, Steno of the office of Civil Surgeon, Patiala and Dr. Harbans Singh Saran of Civil Dispensary, Bishan Nagar, Patiala were joined as witnesses. They were made acquainted with the facts of the case. Thereafter, by fetching a glass of water, sodium carbonate was added in the same but the colour of water did not change. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder treated paper slip was dipped in
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
