SURAIN SINGHversusSTATE OF PUNJAB

                             (2009] 1 S.C.R. 643


                               SURAIN SINGH                               A
                                      v.
                           STATE OF PUNJAB
                    (Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009)
                            JANUARY 27, 2009
                                                                          B
              [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT AND ASOK KUMAR
~
                           GANGULY, JJ.]

              Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - s.13(2) - Demand
       of illegal gratification of Rs.3001- by Patwari for recording entry c
       in mutation register - Conviction and sentence of rigorous
       imprisonment for two years - Upheld by High Court -
       Conviction challenged by taking plea of animosity between
       the parties - Held: High Court analysed the evidence in great
       detail to show that the alleged animosity was not established D
       - Two witnesses referred to the factual scenario in detail -
       Nothing discrepant was brought on record to cast any doubt
       on the credibility of their evidence - However, on facts,
       custodial sentence of one year, which is minimum prescribed,
       would meet the ends of justice - Sentence/Sentencing.               E
           According to the prosecution, the appellant while
       working as a Patwari demanded illegal gratification of
.-.-   Rs.3001- for recording entry in the mutation register. The
       Trial Court convicted the appellant uls.13(2) of the
       Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to            F
       undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years. High Court
       upheld the conviction.

           Before this Court, the appellant challenged his
       conviction by taking the plea of alleged animosity G
       between the parties. He contended that he had not
       accepted any money and that the complainant had a
       grudge against him. The appellant also submitted that the
       occurrence took place in the year 1990, and more than
                                     643                                  H
    644          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A   19 years have passed since then, therefore, the sentence
    needed to be appropriately reduced.

          Partly allowing the appeal, the Court

       HELD: 1. The High Court analysed in great detail the
B evidence to show that the alleged animosity was not
  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. [Para 6] [648-B]
c
       2. Day in and day out the gigantic problem of
  corruption in the public service is on the increase. Large
  scale corruption retards the nation- building activities and
  everyone has to suffer on that count. Corruption is
0 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
E duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself
  assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
  [Para 7) [648-C-E)

        Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana (1997) 4 SCC 14
    and State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (2002) 1 SCC 1,
F   relied on.

      3. Considering the peculiar facts of the case, the
  custodial sentence of one year, which is minimum
  prescribed, would meet the ends of justice. [Para 8) [648-
G F]
                             Case Law Reference:
          (1997) 4 sec 14            relied on           Para 7
          (2002) 1   sec 1           relied on           Para 7
H
                         SURAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   645


     ....,.,       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal             A
               No. 156 of 2009.

                   From the Judgment and Order dated 11.9.2007 of the High
               Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Crl. Appeal No.
               416-SB/1996.                                                      B
                    Manoj Prasad for the Appellant.

                     Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu
               for the Respondent.

                    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
                                                                                 c
                    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 D
                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 E
               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:           F

 )                  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 G
               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 H
    646          SUPREME COURT REPORTS             [2009] 1 S.C.R.


A 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
B notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each and 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
C 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
D 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 respon_ded in positive and
  handed over the aforesaid three currency notes to the accused.
E 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
F 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 Babu Singh         ..,_
  transferred the said mixture into an empty nip and prepared its
G 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
H the memo Ex.PG. possession vide memo Ex.PJ of the same
                     SURAIN SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB                   647
                          [DR. ARIJIT PASAYAT, J.]

           was taken. Personal search of the accused was conducted.           A
           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          B
           established its case by examining Jail 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.                                   c
               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.

                 The trial Court found the prosecution version to be cogent D
            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 DOR
            137 dated 23.11.1989 Ex. DA recorded by the accused had
            no relevance. The demarcation had taken place on 23.11.1989 E
           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
            DOR 158 dated 8.12.1990 Ex. DB is concerned, the accused
           never gave any complaint to his higher officers regarding F
           alleged threat given by the complainant. DOR 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
                                                                             G
           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           H
                                                                              >
    648          SUPREME COURT REPORTS              (2009) 1 S.C.R.


A   sentence needs to be appropriately reduced.

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

         6. The High Court has analysed in great detail the
8   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.
                                                                              •,
c       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               •
D 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
E
  State of M.P. v. Shambhu Dayal Nagar (2002 (1) SCC 1).

        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.
F
          9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

    8.8.8.                                   Appeal partly allowed.
                                                                              ..