REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDCTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 792 OF 2006

State of Punjab … Appellant

Versus

Sohan Singh …. Respondent

 J U D G M E N T

S.B. SINHA, J.

1. This  appeal  is  directed  against  the  judgment  and  order  dated  29th  

October, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab  

and Haryana whereby a judgment acquitting the respondent from the charges  

under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption  

Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot  

dated 25th September, 1990 was reversed.

1

2. The prosecution case in brief as under is :-

Jasdev Pal Singh (PW-5), complainant, applied for grant an electric  

connection for a 5 H.P. Motor pump.  On receipt of demand notice in July,  

1987,  he deposited  the  necessary fees  and the  test  report.   The site  was  

inspected by the respondent,  who was Junior Engineer with Punjab State  

Electricity Board alongwith the S.D.O.  They approved the installation and  

sent  the  case  to  the  Executive  Engineer,  Bhatinda.   The connection  was  

sanctioned within two months.  It was case of the prosecution that whenever  

complainant went to see the respondent in connection with the release of the  

electric connection, the latter kept on putting him off.

It  was further case of prosecution that on 22nd December,  1988 the  

Complainant along with Sarwan Singh (PW-6) went to Kotkapura and met  

the  respondent,  who  demanded  a  sum  of  Rs.500/-  for  release  of  the  

connection.  On request of the Complainant, respondent agreed to receive  

Rs.200/-. The Complainant and Sarwan Singh told the respondent that they  

would again come at 2.30 or 3.00 p.m.  It was further case of the prosecution  

that the Complainant and Sarwan Singh visited the office of the Vigilance at  

Faridkot and narrated the whole incident to the concerned officer, whereafter  

his  statement  was  recorded.   On  the  basis  of  an  endorsement  made  by  

2

Inspector Gurbachan Singh, a First Information Report No.119 dated 22nd  

December,  1988 under  Section  13(2)  of  the  Act  was  recorded.    It  was  

further case of the prosecution that the complainant produced two currency  

notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each.  The number of the notes were  

noted down and phenolphthalein powder was applied thereto and nothing  

remained in the pocket of the complainant.  The complainant was asked to  

hand over the amount to the respondent on his demand.  Sarwan Singh (PW-

6)  was  directed  to  watch  and  listen  to  the  conversation  between  the  

respondent and the Complainant and if and when the money is passed to the  

respondent, he should give a signal to the raiding party.  One Inderjit Singh,  

Assistant in the Treasury Office also joined the raiding party. As per the  

prosecution, notes were handed over to the accused on demand, at the tea  

shop to which the parties had proceeded to take tea having been offered by  

the respondent. The raiding party was then signaled whereupon the raid was  

conducted and recovery of a sum of Rs.200/- was made  

Respondent was charged for commission of an offence under Section  

13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.   

3. Before the learned Special Judge besides the Complainant Jasdev Pal  

Singh (PW-5), his friend Sarwan Singh (PW-6) was examined to prove the  

3

alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe and the recovery thereof.  They  

supported the prosecution case.  Hardial Singh (PW-7), is also a witness to  

the recovery of the currency notes.   

4. We  may,  however,  notice  that  the  prosecution  examined  one  

Gurcharan  Singh (PW-9),  UD.C.  working in  the  Punjab  State  Electricity  

Board, Faridkot.  He produced the records in regard to the order of grant of  

Service  Connection to  the  Complainant  Jasdev Pal  Singh.   According to  

him, the electrical connection was given to him on 30th March, 1989.  The  

prosecution sought to bring on record that whereas one Suckchain Singh,  

who  was  at  serial  number  38  in  the  seniority  list  had  been  granted  

connection on 25th January, 1989, the complainant Jasdev Pal Singh, who  

was at serial number 36, was given connection on 30th March, 1989.  PW 9,  

however, in his cross-examination accepted that whereas Jasdev Pal Singh’s  

seniority  was  in  the  High  Tension  connection  list,  the  names  of  said  

Suckchan  Singh  and  another  Surain  Singh  were  in  the  Low  Tension  

seniority list.  He further admitted that the seniority positions in the High  

Tension List and the Low Tension List are not inter-connected.  

We may  furthermore  notice  the  relevant  portion  of  his  deposition,  

which is in the following terms :-

4

“Surain Singh was Ex-Serviceman and there was a  priority  for  his  connection.   The  seniority  list  cannot  be modified  by the  JE,  S.D.O.  or  by  the  Executive  Engineer.  It  is  maintained  i.e.  the  Seniority List are maintained by the Secretary of  the Board of Patiala.  The accused could not give  connection  to  any  one  before  his  turn.   The  consumer can go either to the JE or the SDO to  enquire  about  his  turn  of  connection.   But  no  purpose can be served by the consumer to go the  JE or SDO before the turn of his connection.”

5. The  complainant  PW-5  was  given  a  suggestion  that  before  giving  

electric connection a transformer was required to be installed which fact he  

admitted as also that the same having been installed on 30th March, 1989, he  

got the connection on the same date.  The Complainant admitted that the  

connection was to be released only after the installation of transformer as per  

the sanction order.  

6. We may place on record that one Inderjit Singh was an independent  

witness.  On the purported ground that he had been won over, he was not  

examined, in support of material was brought on record.  On what basis the  

said finding of fact was arrived at is not known.

7. The learned Special Judge relying on or on the basis of the evidence  

adduced by the prosecution and in particular the deposition of Jasdev Pal  

5

Singh (PW-5)  and Sarwan Singh (PW-6)  found the  respondent  guilty  of  

commission of the said offence.

On an appeal having been preferred by the respondent the High Court  

by reason of the impugned judgment reversed the said decision.  

8. Mr. Gagandeep Sharma learned counsel appearing on behalf of the  

State upon taking us through the depositions of the prosecution witnesses  

would contend that the High Court committed a serious error in passing the  

impugned judgment  in  so far it  failed to take into  consideration that  the  

prosecution has not only able to prove demand and acceptance of the bribe  

but also recovery of the sum of Rs.200/- and, thus, the onus of proof was on  

the accused to discharge the burden that the amount recovered from him was  

not by way of illegal gratification.

9. Mr. Rajiv Dutta,  learned senior counsel appearing on behalf of the  

respondent, however, would support the impugned judgment.

10. The High Court in support of its judgment inter alia opined :-

i) The prosecution is required to establish the demand of bribe by  

the accused; acceptance whereof as also the amount in question  

6

from his  possession and having  regard  to  the  fact  that  there  

exists serious discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses in  

regard to the events immediately prior to the payment of the  

amount of bribe, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved  

its case.  

ii) No reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why the  

independent  witness  Inderjit  Singh,  who  was  a  government  

employee, had been given up by the prosecution.

iii) The  circumstantial  evidence  in  regard  to  the  alleged  

commission of the offence by the respondent was not sufficient  

to establish the case of bribery in the light of the ingredients  

thereof.  

11. Indisputably  the  complainant  PW-5  and  Sarwan  Singh  PW-6  are  

friends.  The complainant had applied for grant of the electric connection for  

running a 5 H.P. motor.   It was a High Tension connection.  Indisputably  

again, in view of the categorical statement made by Gurcharan Singh, PW-9,  

the High Tension connection could be granted in terms of the seniority list  

only and after installation of the transformer.  Respondent, who was a Junior  

Engineer, according to PW-9 had no role to play in the matter.  Priority in  

7

the  matter  of  grant  of  connection  only  could  be  granted  by  the  higher  

authorities in the Board.   

12. It  was  in  the  aforementioned  factual  scenario,  the  defence  of  the  

respondent must be considered.     

He in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure  

inter alia stated :-

“I  am innocent.   Some days prior  to 22.12.1988  Jasdev Pal Singh  came to me and inquired about  his turn of connection.  I told him that probably it  would be on 30.3.1989.  He insisted to give him  connection out of turn which I refused.  This led to  altercation between me and Jasdev Pal Singh.  He  told me to teach me a lesson.  All this happened in  the presence of Lakhbir Singh.  On the alleged day  of  occurrence  alongwith  Ram Badhan  Peon  and  some customers  were  present  at  the  tea  shop of  Janakraj  at  Kotkapura  where  Jasdev Singh came  and he tried to forcibly thrust the currency notes in  my pocket, which I tried to push with my hands  and  I  raised  alarm.   The  notes  remained  with  Jasdev  Pal  Singh  and  the  police  came  and  they  took  the  currency  notes  from Jasdev  Pal  Singh.  Sarwan  Singh  and  Hardial  Singh  ASI  were  not  present.   Janak  Raj  owner  of  the  tea  shop  was  present  throughout.   The  police  took  me  to  the  police station and they concocted the case against  me on 23.12.1998 and the documents were anti- dated.”  

8

13. It is also necessary to place on record that the respondent in support of  

his case examined two defence witnesses.  DW-1 Janak Raj is the owner of  

the tea shop where the trap was said to have been laid.  We have noticed  

hereinbefore that PWs. 5 and 6 visited the respondent in his office whenever  

he offered them tea and they came out from the office to the tea shop.  In his  

deposition Janak Raj stated :-   

“My  shop  is  just  in  front  of  the  power  house.  About 1 year and 9 months back, it was about 11  or  11.30  A.M.  I  was  at  my shop.   There  were  some customers.   Accused was also  there.   One  person came there who has his hairs cut but was  having  a  turban  on  the  head.   He  was  forcibly  putting the currency notes in the pocket of pant of  Sohan  Singh  accused  and  the  accused  was  resisting,  with  his  both hands.  In  the  meanwhile  the police came there in plain cloths.  The currency  notes  were  in  the  hands  of  that  sikh  gentleman.  The police took the accused with them along with  that man. The notes were taken by the police from  that sikh gentleman.”

Strangely enough he was not cross-examined on the correctness of the  

said statements.  Only three suggestions were given to him (i) that he had  

not narrated the incident to any respectable person till that day; (ii) that he  

had not made any complaint about the high handedness of the police; and  

(iii) that he was falsely deposing.   

9

14. Another  defence  witness  who  was  examined  on  behalf  of  the  

respondent was Lakhbir Singh.  He was a witness to the occurrence which is  

said to have taken place in the morning of 22nd November, 1988.  According  

to the said witness when the respondent refused to grant electric connection  

out of turn, he heard exchanges of hot words and a threat was made to the  

accused by a person that he would teach him a lesson.  

15. Complainant, PW-5, in his evidence categorically stated that although  

he had visited the office of the Board at Kotkapura, which is at a distance of  

34-35 kms,,  and met  the  respondent  number of times  but  the  demand of  

money was made for the first time on 22nd December,1988.  He accepted that  

Sarwan Singh was not with him on earlier occasions..  Sarwan Singh is not a  

resident of the same village.  His village is situated at a distance of 1 ½ kms.  

from his village.  Although he sought to offer an explanation that both he  

and Sarwan Singh had gone to enquire about the price of Narma crop, he  

could not name the commission agent through whom he sells the agricultural  

product.  No  plausible  explanation  had  been  furnished  as  to  why  PW-6  

Sarwan Singh had accompanied the complainant in the afternoon.  

16. We have noticed hereinbefore that in the matter of grant of electric  

connection  on  out  of  turn  where  a  seniority  list  has  been  prepared,  the  

1 0

respondent had no role to play.   Moreoever,  connection could have been  

granted only after installation of transfer, which was within the exclusive  

domain of the higher authorities of the Board.   

17. It is in that view of the matter the evidence of an independent witness  

was  crucial.   Indrajit  Singh  was  an  officer  working  in  the  Treasury  

Department.  It is ordinarily not expected that a government servant would  

be won over so easily.   

The High Court, as noticed hereinbefore,  upon consideration of the  

materials brought by the prosecution has also found serious discrepancies in  

regard to the events taken place prior to the raid.  Furthermore the learned  

Special  Judge failed to take into consideration the effect of deposition of  

PW-9 Gurcharan Singh as  also the defence witnesses.   We have noticed  

hereinbefore  that  DW-1  Janak  Raj  had  not  been  cross-examined  at  all.  

Except giving him some suggestions, as noticed above, no question was put  

to him to discredit his evidence.  The prosecution has also not been able to  

establish that any demand had been made by the respondent.  Evidence of  

PW-9, Gurcharan Singh, to the effect that the respondent had no role to play  

in the matter, thus assumes significance.   

1 1

The view taken by the High Court, therefore, in our opinion, was a  

plausible view.  It is now well settled that if two views are possible, this  

court,  ordinarily,  in  exercise  of  its  jurisdiction  under  Article  136  of  the  

Constitution of India,  would not interfere with the judgment of  the High  

Court. {  See John K. John v.  Tom Varghese, [ (2007) 12 SCC 714]  and  

State of Punjab  v.  Gurnam Kaur and others, [ 2009 (4) SCALE 343 ] }.  

18. For the reasons aforementioned there is no merit in this appeal which  

fails and is dismissed.   

………………………………J.      [ S.B. Sinha ]

………………………………J.         [ Dr. Mukundakam Sharma ]

New Delhi May 15, 2009   

1 2