Punjab-Haryana High Court
Amrish Pal vs State Of Punjab on 17 January, 2025
Author: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Bench: Manjari Nehru Kaul
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT
CHANDIGARH
485 CRA-S-990-SB-2008(O&M)
Date of decision: 17.01.2025
Amrish Pal
....Petitioner
V/s
State of Punjab
....Respondent
CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL
Present: Mr.Subham Kaushik, Advocate, for the appellant.
Mr.Amit Rana, Sr.DAG, Punjab.
*****
MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J. (ORAL)
1. The instant appeal has been preferred by the accused
(hereinafter referred to as Appellant), challenging the judgment dated
13.05.2008 passed by the Special Judge, Bathinda whereby the appellant
was convicted and sentenced as follows:-
"to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and
fine of Rs.6,000/-, in default thereof R.I. for six months
under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988."
2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell revolves around the
allegation that on 8th of March, 2005, the appellant, who was serving as
Patwari, demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 600/- from
the complainant, Jagsir Singh, for entering the mutation of redemption of
mortgage in the revenue records.
1 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
3. The complainant, Jagsir Singh, had previously mortgaged his
land measuring 23 Kanals and 6 Marlas to secure a loan from the bank.
Upon repayment of the loan on 22nd of February, 2005, the bank issued
"No Objection Certificates" (Exhibit PN and Exhibit PO). When the
complainant approached the appellant to record the mutation of
redemption, the appellant initially delayed the process and, on 07.03.2005,
demanded Rs. 1000/- as a bribe, which was later negotiated to Rs.600/-.
4. Unwilling to pay the bribe, the complainant approached the
Vigilance Bureau, leading to a trap being laid on 08.03.2005, under the
supervision of DSP Ashutosh (PW-11). A trap team was constituted, and
the currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter
referred to as 'powder') were recovered from the right pocket of the coat
worn by the appellant, during the raid.
5. On the basis of the material on record and after obtaining the
requisite sanction Exhibit P-M from the District Collector, Bathinda,
challan was presented in the Court. The appellant was charged for offence
under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act') to which he pleaded not
guilty and claimed trial. In support, the prosecution examined 11 witnesses
including the complainant, who was examined as PW-9, Jaspal Singh
shadow witness appeared as PW-10 and Investigating Officer DSP
Ashutosh as PW-11.
6. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the
appellant denied the allegations of demand and acceptance of bribe. He
2 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
contended that the recovered money from him constituted Government
fees for preparing copies of Jamabandies and Khasra Girdwaries. He
further claimed discrepancies in the 'No Due Certificates' (Exhibits PN and
PO) given by the bank, which prevented him from completing the
mutation. To support his defence, the appellant examined DW-1, Gurjant
Singh, Revenue Patwari Halqa Tungwali, who testified about the alleged
discrepancies and the fees receipt entries in the register (Exhibit DE).
7. The learned trial Court, on the basis of the material on record
and evidence led, passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence which already stands reproduced in the earlier part of this order.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that :
(i) the prosecution failed to reconcile the discrepancies
between Exhibit-PN Exhibit-PO and the revenue records;
(ii) Rs. 600 recovered from the appellant was not a bribe but
Government fees for preparing the requested documents,
which were duly recorded in the fees register Exhibit DE; and
(iii) the learned trial Court erred in interpreting the evidence,
ignoring key inconsistencies and procedural lapses in the case
of the prosecution.
9. Learned State counsel, on the other hand, argued that the
conviction of the appellant was supported by cogent evidence, including
the demand and acceptance as also recovery of bribe money, corroborated
by the phenolphthalein test. The absence of prior enmity between the
3 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
complainant and the appellant further supported the case of the
prosecution.
10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the
relevant material placed on record.
11. The demand for a bride is a sine qua non for proving an
offence under Sections 7 and 13(1) B of the PC Act. In the case at hand, the
complainant, Jagsir Singh PW-9, provided a consistent and detailed
account of the demand made by the appellant for Rs.600/- as bribe. His
testimony was corroborated by PW-10 Jaspal Singh, shadow witness, who
confirmed hearing the appellant demanding the bribe and seeing the
complainant hand over the tainted money. The recovery of tainted currency
notes from the conscious possession of the appellant and the positive
results of the phenolphthalein test lend further credence to the case of the
prosecution.
12. Further, the claim of the appellant that the Rs.600/- recovered
from him was a legitimate fee is contradicted by the absence of any
contemporaneous entry in the fees register Exhibit DE or the issuance of a
receipt. Furthermore, the defence failed to produce the alleged Jamabandies
or Khasra Girdawaries during the trial. Furthermore, the phenolphthalein
test conclusively proved the handling of the tainted money by the appellant,
and the recovery was documented through unimpeachable recovery memos
Exhibit PB and Exhibit PC. The recovery of the tainted currency notes
from the coat pocket of the appellant were sufficiently proved through the
testimonies of DSP Ashutosh PW-11, shadow witness Jaspal Singh PW-10
4 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
and the independent witnesses PW-1 Dr. Bharat Bhushan and PW-2
Vikramjit Singh, who also were part of the raiding party. The emphasis by
the learned counsel for the appellant that the recovered money was a
legitimate fees is clearly undermined by the absence of any documentary
evidence linking the Rs. 600/- to official revenue records. Still further, the
minor discrepancies referred to by the learned counsel for the appellant in
Exhibits PN and PO would not come to the rescue of the appellant and
create any significant dent in the case of the prosecution. These two
documents/certificates clearly indicate that the mortgage was redeemed,
and there was no legal justification for demanding additional payments
from the complainant. It also needs to be pointed out that the fees register
Exhibit-DE lacks authenticity as it does not even bear the signature of the
complainant; no entry regarding the issuance of Jamabandies or Khasra
Girdawaries was found in the Daily Diary Register, as also admitted by
DW-1 Gurjant Singh. Pertinently, the alleged documents were neither
found at the office of the appellant at the time of the raid nor produced
during the trial.
13. The testimony of DW-1-Gurjant Singh, also lacks credibility
as it failed to explain the absence of receipts or valid entries in the fees
register. The alleged procedural lapses highlighted by the learned counsel
for the appellant in the investigation of the Vigilance Bureau is insufficient
to rebut the direct and corroborated evidence of demand, acceptance and
recovery of the bribe. Rather DW-1-Gurjant Singh, admitted that
discrepancies in revenue records required rectification by higher
5 of 6
Neutral Citation No:=2025:PHHC:009508
authorities, and not the appellant. This further weakens the defence put
forth by the appellant.
14. The prosecution, therefore in the light of the above discussion,
was successful in establishing beyond reasonable doubt the case put up
against the appellant. The impugned judgment and order dated 13.05.2008,
in the circumstances, does not warrant any interference and is upheld.
15. The instant appeal is accordingly dismissed.
(MANJARI NEHRU KAUL)
January 17, 2025 JUDGE
poonam
Whether speaking/reasoned: Yes/No
Whether reportable: Yes/No
6 of 6
