LexBALDEV SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 4 S.C.R. 49 BALDEV SINGH v. STATE OF PUNJAB (Criminal Appeal No. 503 of 2014) FEBRUARY 26, 2014 (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 A B 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 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 G 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 0 alia, that the currency notes were kept under the files by 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 F occurred before 1.10.2000, whereas, in fact, water was 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
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.