BALDEV SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                     [2014] 4 S.C.R. 49


                      BALDEV SINGH                             A
                            v.
                   STATE OF PUNJAB
            (Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2014)
                   FEBRUARY 26, 2014
                                                               B
 (K.S. RADHAKRISHNAN AND VIKRAMAJIT SEN, JJ.]

      Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988: s. 13(2) - Demand of
 bribe for a/location of canal water - Money paiq in the house
 of the accused - Conviction and rigorous imprisonment for 3 C
years by courts below - Held: The evidence established that
 the complainant had handed over to the appellant a sum of
 Rs.10001- which was subsequently recovered from beneath
 the files - Formality of tallying the numbers on the currency
notes was complied with, including the washing of the D
appellant's hands in Sodium Carbonate solution, leading to
his unassailable implication - Courts below rightly noted that
the complainant would have had no occasion to go to the ·
house of the appellant unless he had been specifically
called; and it was improbable for the complainant to be called E
to the home and not to the office, unless there was some
ulterior motive, such as claim and receipt of the subject bribe
- Appellant failed to show any contradiction or inconsistency
in the statement of the complainant - Conviction upheld -
However, in the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the F
appellant was 62 years of age, and already retired and,
therefore, cannot indulge in corrupt practices, the sentence
is reduced to two years Rigorous Imprisonment, but the fine
is increased to Rs.10,0001- - Sentence/Sentencing.

     The prosecution case was that the appellant made          G
a demand of Rs.2000 from the complainant for granting
an earlier and separate allocation of canal water for
irrigation of his land. The deal was settled at Rs.1000. The
trap was laid and the complainant paid the said amount
                              49                               H
    50       SUPREME COURT REPORTS            [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   to the appellant in his house as demanded by him. The
    appellant was caught with the money. The courts below
    found the appellant guilty for committing offence under
    Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
    The instant appeal was filed challenging the conviction.
B        Disposing of the appeal, the Court
       HELD: The evidence established that~the
  complainant had handed over to the appellant a sum of
  Rs.1000/- which was subsequently recovered from
C beneath the files. The formality of tallying the numbers on
  the currency notes was complied with, including the
  washing of the appellant's hands in Sodium Carbonate
  solution, leading to his unassailable implication. The
  courts below disbelieved the appellant's version, inter
  alia, that the currency notes were kept under the files by
0
  the complainant on his own volition without any demand
  being made in that regard by the appellant. The courts
  below also rightly noted that the complainant would have
  had no occasion to go to the house of the appellant
  unless he had been specific!JllY called; and it was
E improbable for the complainant to be called to the home
  and not to the office, unless there was some ulterior
  motive, such as claim and receipt of the subject bribe.
  The complainant's turn to receive water would not have
  occurred before 1.10.2000, whereas, in fact, water was
F received much in advance of the previous practice on
  28.6.2000. The ~ppellant has not succeeded in showing
  any contradiction or inconsistency in the statement of the
  complainant. Culpability or innocence is always
  regulated by the evidence that is brought on record. In
G the peculiar circumstances of the case, that the appellant
  is 62 years of age, and has already retired and has been
  sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a
  period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and
  in default thereof, to further undergo Rigorous
H Imprisonment for a period of six months and keeping in
        BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   51

perspective the age of the appellant and that he is no          A
longer in service and, therefore, cannot indulge in
corrupt practices, the sentence is reduced to two years
Rigorous Imprisonment, but the fine is increased to
Rs.10,000/-, and on failure to pay the said amount, to
further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for an enhanced           8
period of nine months. [Paras 4 to 6] [52-G-H; 53-A-D; 54-
D, E-G]
    Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450:
2010 (4) SCR 383; C.M. Girish Babu vs CBI, Cochin, High
Court of Kera/a, (2009) 3 SCC 779: 2009 (2) SCR 1021; A.        C
Subair vs State of Kera/a (2009) 6 SCC 587; M.K. Harshan
vs State of Kera/a (1996) 11 SCC 720 - Held inapplicable.
                     Case Law Reference:
    2010 (4) SCR 383    Held inapplicable Para 5
                                                                D
    2009 (2) SCR 1021   Held inapplicable Para 5
    (2009) 6 SCC 587    Held inapplicable Para 5
    (1996) 11 SCC 720   Held inapplicable Para 5
    CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 503 of 2014.                                                E
     From the Judgment & Order dated 08.07.2013 of the High
Court of Punjab & Haryana at Chandigarh in CRA No. 1526
of 2003
   Govind Goel, Sanjoy Kr. Yadav, Ankit Goel (for Dr. Kailash   F
Chand) for the Appellant.
    Jayant K. Sud, AAG, Ujas Kumar, Jasleen Chahal (for
Kuldeep Singh) for the Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                G
    VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J. 1. Leave granted.
     2. The Appellant has filed the present Special Leave
Petition (now Appeal) in an endeavour to set aside the
concurrent findings of the Courts below with regard to his
conviction and sentence under Section 13(2) of the Prevention   H
    52        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter 'the P.C. Act'). The Special
    Judge had convicted the Appellant, which came to be sustained
    by the High Court in terms of its impugned judgment dated
    8. 7.2013. Accordingly, the Courts below have concurrently found
    the Appellant guilty, and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous
    Imprisonment for a period of three years and to payment of a
8
    fine of Rs.5000/-, and in default thereof, to further undergo
    Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

         3. According to the Prosecution, a complaint was received
    from Nishan Singh, an agriculturist who along with his family
C   owned farm land in village Golewala, which, however, was at
    two separate places, but was being irrigated at the same time.
    Since this was obviously fraught with inconvenience, the
    Complainant wanted to have an earlier and separate allocation
    of canal water for the said two parcels of land. It was in regard
    to this request that the Appellant had demanded Rs.2000/-
0
    from the Complainant, and the matter was eventually "settled"
    at Rs.1000/-. The Complainant paid the said amount to the
    Appellant in his house, as demanded by him, but after alerting
    the Vigilance Authorities. These currency notes aggregating to
    Rs.1000/- were applied with Phenolphthalein Powder and were
E   handed over to the Appellant in the presence of official/shadow
    witness, Jaskaran Singh, who was examined as PW4. Two
    other official witnesses also constituted the raid party.

          4. We have perused the order of the Special Judge dated
F   11.8.2003, as well as the impugned order of the High Court
    dated 8. 7.2013, both of which have gone into the minute details
    of the case, which exercise we do not consider necessary to
    replicate. Suffice it to say that the evidence establishes that the
    Complainant had handed over to the Appellant a sum of
    Rs.1000/- which was subsequently recovered from beneath the
G   files. The formality of tallying the numbers on the currency notes
    was complied with, including the washing of the Appellant's
    hands in Sodium Carbonate solution, leading to his
    unassailable implication. The Courts below have disbelieved
    the Appellant's version, inter alia, that the currency notes had
H
        BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                        53
               [VIKRAMAJIT SEN, J.]
 been kept under the files by the Complainant on his own volition    A
without any demand being made in that regard by the
Appellant. The Courts below have also rightly noted that the
Complainant would have had no occasion to go to the house
of the Appellant unless he had been specifically called; and it
was improbable for the Complainant to be called to the home          B
and not to the office, unless there was some ulterior motive,
such as claim and receipt of the subject bribe. It also appears
that the Complainant's turn to receive water would not have
occurred before 1.10.2000, whereas, in fact, water was
received much in advance of the previous practice on                 c
28.6.2000. The Appellant has not succeeded in showing any
contradiction or inconsistency in the statement of the
Complainant, who appeared as PW3 In this conspectus, we
find no error in the impugned Judgment, which in turn affirms
the Order of the Special Judge.                                      D

      5. We are also not persuaded by the submissions of the
learned Counsel for the Appellant that the decision of this Court
in Banarsi Dass vs State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450, is of
any succour to him. The prosecution in that case failed to
establish that the accused had demanded illegal gratification        E
and contrary to what has been proved in the case in hand, the
recovered money was found lying on the table, apparently on
the unilateral volition of the complainant. Similarly, C.M. Girish
Babu vs CBI , Cochin, High Cowt of Kera/a, (2009) 3 SCC
779, is also of no assistance to the Appellant because the           F
Court had concluded that the sum of Rs.1500/- was accepted
by the Accused in that case believing it to be repayment of a
loan taken from him by PW2, and it further held that prosecution
failed to establish any demand of bribe/illegal gratification made
by the Accused to the PW10, as PW10 did not support the              G
story of the prosecution. This Court found the evidence of PW2
about the demand of bribe amount by the accused as
inadmissible since the same was hearsay. A. Subair vs State
of Kerala (2009) 6 SCC 587, has enunciated that the
prosecution is required to prove that the accused in this genre      H
    54         SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2014] 4 S.C.R.


A   of cases had demanded and accepted illegal gratification. In
    A. Subair, the complainant was not examined rendering the
    factum of demand unproved. Interestingly, the entire case was
    based solely on the evidence of PW10, whose evidence was
    found to be lacking in quality, and , therefore, unreliable. In
B contrast, both the constituents of demand and acceptance stand
    proved beyond reasonable doubt in the case in hand. As early
    as in M.K. Harshan vs State of Kerala (1996) 11 SCC 720, this
    Court has opined that to bring home charges of bribery, the twin
    concomitants of 'demand' and 'acceptance' must be
c   substantiated. In the afore-noted case, owing to conflicting
    versions and suspicious feature in the story of prosecution, the
    version of the Accused that the money was put in the drawer
    in his office without his knowledge was found probable. The
    Appellant Accused, therefore, was given benefit of doubt and
    thereby acquitted. It seems to us to be irrefutable that culpability
0
    or innocence is always regulated by the evidence that has been
  . brought on record, therefore, multiplying previous decisions of
    this Court will be of no advantage to the Appellant. Discussing
    each of them will lead to making this judgment avoidably prolix.

E      6. In the particular circumstances of the case, we have
  noted that the Appellant is 62 years of age, and has already
  retired. As already mentioned, he has been sentenced to
  undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three years and
  to pay a fine of Rs.5000/- and in default thereof, to further
F undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.
  Keeping in perspective the age of the Appellant and that he is
  no longer in service and, therefore, cannot indulge in corrupt
  practices, we are inclined to reduce the sentence to two years
  Rigorous Imprisonment, but increase the fine to Rs.10,000/-,
G and on failure to pay the said amount, to further undergo
  Rigorous Imprisonment for an enhanced period of nine months.

           7. The appeal is disposed of in the above terms.

    D.G.                                        Appeal disposed of.
H