REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL  NO.              OF 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4563 of 2008)

Surain Singh   …Appellant

Vs.

State of Punjab  …Respondent

J U D G M E N T

DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal  is to the judgment of a learned Single Judge

of  Punjab  and  Haryana  High  Court   upholding  the  conviction  of  the

appellant for offence punishable under Section 13(2)  of the Prevention of

Corruption  Act,  1988  (in  short  the  ‘Act’).  According  to  the  prosecution

version the appellant while working as a Patwari of Circle Gudher Dhandi

had demanded illegal gratification of Rs.300/- for entering the mutation on

the basis of a sale deed.  Learned Special Judge, Ferozepur, by judgment

dated  28.5.1996  had  found  him  guilty  and  sentenced  him  to  undergo

rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with

default stipulation.  

3. Prosecution version in a nutshell is as follows:

On 17.12.1990, Kehar Singh complainant approached the accused in

his office situated near Baghi Hospital, Ferozepur, for entering the mutation

in the names of his sons namely Wasakha Singh and Darshan Singh, on the

basis of the sale deed relating to 4 kanals land purchased by them from one

Ahama Ram son of Mohna Ram resident of Village Gudhar Dhandi for a

consideration of Rs.10,000/-. The accused demanded a sum of Rs.400/- as

illegal gratification for entering the mutation from the complainant, but the

bargain was settled at Rs.300/-. As the complainant was not willing to pay

the money, he  approached Sohan  Singh (a shadow witness)  and both  of

them  approached  the  Vigilance  Bureau,  Ferozepur,  where  Babu  Singh,

Inspector Vigilance Department recorded his statement Ex.PF and took into

possession three currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and

2

after applying pehnophsthalene powder and after conducting the personal

search  of  the  complainant,  handed  over  to  him the  said  currency notes.

Thereafter,  he  completed  the  formalities.  Sohan  Singh  was  deployed  as

shadow witness and he was directed to indicate after the accused accepts the

illegal gratification. Babu Singh Inspector Vigilance Department, made his

endorsement  Ex.PF/  1  on  his  statement  Ex.PF and  sent  the  same to  the

police  station,  on the basis of which FIR Ex.PR was registered at police

Station  City,  Ferozepur.  On their  way to  the  office  of  the  accused,  Hari

Singh,  a  Government  employee was  also  joined  as  a  witness.  When the

complainant reached the office of the accused, then the accused enquired

from the complainant about the bribe money, which was demanded on the

previous day. The complainant responded in positive and handed over the

aforesaid  three  currency notes  to  the accused.  After  the  accused put  the

same into his pocket,  Sohan Singh, the shadow witness gave signal after

going out of the office and the police apprehended the accused red handed.

Inspector Babu Singh after giving his identity arranged a glass tumbler and

put  clean  water  in  the  same and  mixed  sodium carbonate  and  made  its

solution. He got washed the hands of Han Singh in the said water but the

colour of the water did not change. Thereafter, when the accused washed his

hands,  then  the colour  of  the water  turned pinkish.  Thereafter,  Inspector

3

Babu Singh transferred the said mixture into an empty nip and prepared its

parcel,  sealed  it  and  took  the  same  into  possession  vide  memo Ex.PH.

Thereafter, Inspector Babu Singh searched the accused and recovered three

currency notes Ex.P1 to Ex.P3 from the front pocket of the shirt worn by

him. After comparing the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers

recorded in the memo Ex.PG, possession vide memo Ex.PJ of the same was

taken. Personal search of the accused was conducted. Documents recovered

from him were taken into possession vide memo Ex.PK. He completed the

other  formalities;  after  recording the statements of  the witnesses;  got  the

sanction for prosecution of the accused;  collected report  of the Chemical

Examiner Ex.PT and challaned the accused. The prosecution established its

case by examining Jait Kumar, Naib Sadar Kanungo (PW1), Kehar Singh

complainant  (PW2),  Sohan  Singh  (PW3),  Inspector  Babu  Singh  (PW4).

After tendering into evidence report of the Chemical Examiner Ex. PT, the

prosecution closed its evidence.   

The accused took the plea that he had not accepted any money and

had not recorded any entry in the mutation register and that the complainant

had a grudge against him.  

4

The  trial  Court  found  the  prosecution  version  to  be  cogent  and

credible and as noted above convicted him. In appeal, the stand taken was

relating to alleged animosity.  The High Court did not find any substance in

the plea. It was noted that DDR 137 dated 23.11.1989 Ex. DA recorded by

the  accused  had  no  relevance.  The  demarcation  had  taken  place  on

23.11.1989 whereas occurrence took place one year after the incident.  In

any  event,  demarcation  of  the  land  is  not  the  final  verdict  regarding

surrender of land. It was also noted that so far as DDR 158 dated 8.12.1990

Ex. DB is concerned, the accused never gave any complaint to his higher

officers regarding alleged threat given by the complainant. DDR has been

recorded by the accused himself. There was nothing to show that the entry

was made on 8.12.1990. During investigation there was reference to it.  For

the first time it was brought to light at the time of recording of evidence.

Accordingly, the High Court dismissed the appeal.  

4. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant re-iterated

the alleged animosity between the parties.  It  was  also  submitted that  the

occurrence took place in the year 1990, and more than 19 years have passed,

therefore, the sentence needs to be appropriately reduced.   

5

5. Learned counsel for the respondent-State supported the judgment.  

6. The High Court has analysed in great detail the evidence to show that

the alleged animosity has not been established. Two witnesses PWs 2 and 3

in detail had referred to the factual scenario and nothing discrepant has been

brought on record to cast any doubt on the credibility of their evidence.  

7. Day in and day out the gigantic problem of corruption in the public

servants  is  on  the  increase.  Large  scale  corruption  retards  the  nation-

building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is

corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics,

social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest

officers.  The  efficiency  in  public  service  would  improve  only  when  the

public  servant  devotes  his  sincere  attention  and does the  duty diligently,

truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of

the duties of his post. (See: Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana (1997 (4)

SCC 14) and State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (2002 (1) SCC 1).  

6

8. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, we are of the view that the

custodial sentence of one year, which is minimum prescribed, would meet

the ends of justice.  

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.   

…………………………………….J. (Dr. ARIJIT PASAYAT)

…………………………….………J. (ASOK KUMAR GANGULY)

New Delhi, January 27, 2009

7