Surain Singh v. State of Punjab , (SC) BS180113
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

Before:- Dr. Arijit Pasayat and Asok Kumar Ganguly, JJ.

Criminal Appeal No. 156 of 2009 (Arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. 4563 of 2008). D/d. 27.1.2009.

Surain Singh - Appellant

Versus

State of Punjab - Respondent

For the Appellant :- Manoj Prasad, Advocate.

For the Respondent :- Kuldip Singh, R.K. Pandey, T.P. Mishra and H.S. Sandhu, Advocates.

Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 13(2) - Reduction in sentence - Accused working as Patwari - Convicted and sentenced to 2 years RI for accepted a bribe of Rs. 300/- - Prayer for reduction of sentence as incident was 19 years old - Sentenced reduced to one year - Held :-

[Paras 7 and 18]

Cases Referred :-

Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana, 1998(1) SCT 513 : (1997(4) SCC 14).

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

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J. - 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 :

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 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. 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, 1998(1) SCT 513 : (1997(4) SCC 14) and 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.

9. The appeal is allowed to the aforesaid extent.

Appeal allowed.