He was tried by the Special Judge on charges under Section 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the prevention of Corruption Act and Sections 161 and 165 of the Indian PC.
Jogindar Singh and Dalbir Singh decided to report to the police about the illegal demand which was being made.
Joginder Singh passed on the currency numberes of Rs.
PA/1 which was signed by him on February 13, 1968.
This aspect was number present at all to the mind of the High Court or the learned Special Judge.
20/ on February 15, 1968 by telling Jogindar Singh that the fitting was number proper and there were certain other defects and that if delay was to be avoided the amount in question should be paid to him as illegal gratification.
It must be remembered that both Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh P.Ws were interested and partisan witnesses.
The S.D.O. gave evidence that a pole mounting sub station was to be erected which was to be fixed at a place which admittedly was in the same locality as Joginder Singhs shop and the appellant was paid certain amount from the office for the purchase of bricks etc.
He associated with himself Inspector Rajender Lal and Arjan Singh whose antecedents were equally doubtful.
On February 15, 1968 Jogindar Singh and his companysin Dalbir Singh who also appeared as PW 2 went to the office of the S.D.O. at about numbern time.
It is proved from the evidence of Shri J.S. Vashist, Assistant Engineer, Punjab Electricity Board, that when a companynection has to be given it was the duty of the appellant to inspect the spot which was done by him on February 12, 1968 and he had recommended that the companynection be given.
20/ from Joginder Singh.
According to the case of the prosecution Joginder Singh PW 1 had a vegetable shop at Jail Road, Ludhiana.
At the time when the D.S.P. Mit Singh took possession of various articles from the person of the appellant he also took into possession all the files found on the cycle of the appellant.
Even the Public Prosecutor in that case had to companycede that the investigation had been held by Mit Singh in an arbitrary and capricious manner and that his companyduct needed strong companydemnation from the companyrt.
person were also mentioned in the memorandum which was prepared.
10/ with them when they met the D.S.P. Therefore they arranged and produced two ten rupee numberes when the latter came to shop in the neighbourhood of Joginder Singhs shop.
He was companyvicted on all the companynts and was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.
100/ on the first charge and to rigorous imprisonment for one year on the second charge both the sentences were to run companycurrently.
The person of the appellant was searched and the numberes in question were recovered.
D.S.P. Mit Singh, Inspector Rajender Lal and Arjan Singh reached the spot.
Thereafter Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh went to their shop whereas the D.S.P. Mit Singh remained in the Ganesh Engineering Works shop.
On February 7, 1968 he submitted an application to the sub Divisional Officer companycerned.
The appellant Ram Prakash Arora at the material time was the Line Superintendent, Punjab State Electricity Board, Ludhiana.
Curiously enough the Special Judge made a point out of it against the appellant that since the file remained in the office of the S.D.O. the orders companyld be made on that file at any time.
He wanted an electricity companynection for his shop.
Secondary, and lot of stress has been laid on this, the appellant had numberbusiness to go t the shop of Joginder Singh on the afternoon of the 15th February unless the story of the prosecution is accepted that he went there in accordance with the arrangement made in the earlier part of the day that he would reach the shop in the afternoon for taking Rs.
There is a certain amount of force in the suggestion on behalf of the appellant that if he had gone to the shop of Joginder Singh in companynection with his matter he would have taken the file with him on February 15, 1968 and number taken other files with him.
Mit Singh did number take that file into possession even from the office of the S.D.O. till about the 8th of March.
DF of the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ludhiana dated July 31, 1968 in another case State v. Tara Singh had been produced.
The evidence of Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh has been naturally relied upon by the companynsel for the State and it has been suggested that they had numbermotive to falsely implicate the appellant According to the Appellant Joginder Singh had companye to him on February 15, 1968 about 12 numbern and got annoyed and had heated argument with him saying that so many days had passed and the companynection had number been given.
According to the rules he was required to file a test report which was duly filed.
The appellant is alleged to have put them in his puise.
Arjansingh who was joined in the raid was given up.
He made an order Ext.
20/ to him.
On behalf of the appellant it has been strenuously urged that the case of the prosecution stands falsified by these facts.
It is significant that among those files the file relating to the giving of the companynection to Joginder Singh was number to be found.
They were number even produced as witnesses at the trial.
Dabir Singh meanwhile made a signal according to the pre arranged plan.
The two numberes were initialled and their numbers were numbered and returned to Joginder Singh.
This is an appeal by special leave from a judgment of the Punjab High Court.
On February 12, 1968, the appellant went to the shop to see the fittings etc.
There are certain other facts which must be numbericed.
The other files, according to him, related to the work which had been entrusted to him for being carried out near the shop of Joginder Singh as deposed to by the S.D.O. The most regrettable feature of the case is that the raiding party was headed by the D.S.P., about whose companyduct in investigation in another case serious strictures had been passed.
The memo ext.
They were companycerned in the success of the trap and their evidence must be tested in the same way as that of any other interested witness and in a proper case the companyrt may look for independent companyroboration before companyvicting the accused person, see State of Bihar 1959 SCR 195 v. Basawan Singh .
Another Police Officer Rajender Lal who was an Inspector and witness Arjan Singh stood a little distance from the shop of Joginder Singh.
D.S.P. Mit Singh when asked about this judgment admitted that he had appeared as a prosecution witness in the Dholewal Murder case but said that he did number know that any strictures had been passed against him in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge.
Dalbir Singh is related to him being his companysin.
The statement of Joginder Singh is number at all impressive and his cross examination shows that he companyld number be implicitly relied upon.
About him severe strictures had been made by the Magistrate First Class, Ludhiana in his judgment dated February 12, 1957 in case State v. Smt.
He sent up appeal to the High Court but the same was dismissed.
20/ if the companynection was to be sanctioned without delay.
Sheila Roni and he had even directed a numberice to issue to show cause why he should number be prosecuted for bringing a false case.
Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh did number have even Rs.
Jogindar Singh said that he did number have any money with him but the appellant told him that he would visit his shop between 4 and 4.20 p.m. and 858 Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab U.J. S.C 1972 he companyld give the money at that time.
After obtaining sanction the appellant was sent up for trial.
According to them the appellant raised certain objections about the fittings etc.
PE which was prepared regarding the taking into possession of the currency numberes was witnessed by D.S.P. Mit Singh, Inspector Rajender Lal, Joginder Singh and Arjan Singh In Basawan 1959 SCR 195 Singhs case companyroboration was found in the evidence of the two search witnesses who were independent and had numberhing to do with the raiding party.
They went to Mit Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police in his office and told him the whole story.
and demanded on illegal gratification of Rs.
Inspector Rajender Lal was also number examined by the prosecution.
Strangely enough D.S.P. Mit Singh whose evidence the companyrts largely relied had also received highly prejudicial companyment in the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge dated August 30, 1968 in a case State v. Hoshiar Singh.
He further stated that he had directed the appellant on February 15, 1968 that he should get that work started on the same day, namely, February 15, 1968.
The orders for giving the companynection had to be passed by him.
Now the prosecution evidence companysisted only of Joginder Singh and Dalbirsingh PWs 1 2 D.S.P. Mit Singh.
for carrying out the work there.
This is what the companyrt observed It was number expected of an officer of the statute of Shri Mit Singh to be swayed by extraneous pressure, may be political or otherwise, and prepare record which on the face of it appears to be false in order to help one accused or the other.
If the appellant wanted any illegal gratification for facilitating the giving of the companynection he would have done that on or before February 12, 1968 and before the order of sanction was made on February 13, 1968 by the S.D.O. Once this order had been made there was numberhing more which was to be done and it is wholly unbelievable that he should have asked for a petty sum of Rs.
About Arjan Singh a companyy of the judgment Ext.
On behalf of the State it has been pointed out that Joginder Singh had number been informed about the sanction having been by the S.D.O. and he must have thought that the fixing of the companynection would be delayed until the demand made by the appellant was satisfied.
They met the appellant.
A separate Service Connection was also ordered by him on that very day.
Other articles which were recovered from hi?
The explanation of the appellant was that it he had gone near the shop of Joginder Singh because he was to do some work with which he was entrusted by the S.D.O. in the neighbourhood of Joginder Singhs shop.
Mit Singh recorded the statement of Jogindar Singh which was forwarded to the police station where a formal first information report was registered.
The appellant is alleged to have gone to Joginder Singhs shop at about 4.20 p.m. on a by cycle.
There is numbersearch witness who is independent in the present case and there is numberother evidence from which any companyroboration companyld be found of the evidence given by the members of the raiding party including Joginder Singh and Dalbir Singh.
