Srinagar, Jan 01 :
The High Court of Jammu & Kashmir and Ladakh has upheld the conviction and sentence of a revenue official in a 19-year-old bribery case. The court held that the recovery of tainted money, corroborated by circumstantial evidence and the conduct of the accused, formed a complete chain pointing only to guilt.
Dismissing Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2014, Justice Rajesh Sekhri, in his 39-page judgment, affirmed the 2014 judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, which had convicted Madan Lal, then a Patwari at Chatha Satwari, for demanding and accepting illegal gratification for issuing a revenue record known as Fard.
“I do not find any illegality much less perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence recorded by learned trial court,” the judge said, adding, “The facts and circumstances established by the prosecution are not explainable on any other hypothesis, except that appellant is guilty of the charge.”
The prosecution case stemmed from a complaint filed on February 22, 2006, by Gurjeet Singh, who intended to purchase 11 marlas of land from Balwant Kour at Chatha Satwari. Singh approached Madan Lal, then the concerned Patwari, for issuance of Fard required for executing the sale deed.
‘Bribe Recovery and
According to the complaint, the Patwari demanded Rs 11,000 as gratification, later settling for Rs 9,000. Acting on the complaint, the Vigilance Organization, Jammu registered FIR No. 5 of 2006 and laid a trap. Madan Lal was caught red-handed while accepting the money, which was recovered along with the application for issuance of Fard. Sodium carbonate tests conducted on the spot returned positive.
Following trial, the Special Judge convicted Madan Lal under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the J&K Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and Section 161 of the Ranbir Penal Code (RPC), sentencing him to one year’s simple imprisonment on each count and imposing a fine of Rs 30,000.
Challenging the conviction, the appellant contended that the prosecution failed to prove demand of bribe and that mere recovery of tainted money could not sustain conviction. It was also argued that the complainant was a police official posted as a PSO to a senior officer and had falsely implicated the Patwari.
Rejecting these arguments, the High Court held that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification can be proved through circumstantial evidence and that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances.
“The chain of evidence adduced by the prosecution is so complete, as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the appellant,” the court observed. On the argument of alleged animus, Justice Sekhri noted, “Merely the complainant serving as PSO of a senior police officer by itself would not mean that he had grouse against the appellant.”
The court also placed reliance on the conduct of the accused at the time of the trap. “When appellant was caught red-handed and gratification amount came to be recovered from his person, the appellant beseeched for a pardon, pleading that he had committed mistake for the first time in his life,” the judge recorded, terming this an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Upholding the trial court’s verdict, the High Court dismissed the appeal as “bereft of any merit,” cancelled the appellant’s bail bonds, and directed him to surrender before the concerned jail superintendent within seven days to serve the remainder of his sentence. “Impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence are upheld,” Justice Sekhri ruled.
