LexSURAIN SINGH versus STATE OF PUNJAB
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
(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
~
GANGUL Y, 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
F
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to
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
c
credibility of their evidence. [Para 6] [648-B]
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]
H
Case Law Reference:
(1997) 4 sec 14
(2002) 1 sec 1
relied on
relied on
Para 7
Para 7
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 namesExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.