KANSHI RAM Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was a Line Superintendent in the Punjab State Electricity Board during the relevant time. One Jugraj Singh was having a flour mill at Abohar wherein he had installed an electric motor of 5 HP. It appears that Jugraj Singh was not paying the electricity charges regularly and the Sub-Divisional Officer ordered for disconnection of electricity. The Appellant in his capacity as Line Superintendent visited the premises of the flour mill of Jugraj and told that the electricity connection was being disconnected. Jugraj Singh pleaded for help and the prosecution case is that the Appellant had demanded Rs. 500 from Jugraj Singh. However, later the Appellant agreed to help on payment of Rs. 300. The Appellant went to the premises and sealed the meter of Jugraj Singh. Jugraj Singh said that he would pay Rs. 300 and the Appellant directed him to come and meet him at his house. Jugraj Singh went to the Vigilance Officer, Ferozpur and told P.W. 5 Babu Singh about the demand made by the Appellant and a trap was laid. Jugraj Singh alongwith Sukhdev Singh (P.W. 4) went to the house of the Appellant and paid Rs. 300. P.W. 5 Babu Singh and his party made a search of the house of the Appellant and recovered the tainted currency from a register. The phenolphthalein test was also conducted and it proved positive.

(2.) On the side of the prosecution P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 were examined and the Appellant in his defence gave a statement to the effect that the Sub-Divisional Officer had ordered disconnection of electricity on 29.5.1989 and the disconnection order was effected on 5.6.1989 and the meter was sealed and Jugraj Singh was annoyed by that. The Appellant stated that he was not empowered to effect reinstallation or reconnection. However, Jugraj Singh came to him on 6.6.1989, with the tainted money as he wanted to make payment of electricity charges in instalments and the Appellant threw away the money and in the meantime police came and took him to the police station. The Court believed the evidence of P.W. 1 to P.W. 5 and held that the Appellant had received the tainted money from Jugraj Singh.

(3.) The counsel for the Appellant contended before us that there was no independent witness to prove the prosecution case. We are not inclined to accept this contention. Evidence of Jugraj Singh and P.W. 5, the inspector, proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had received the money and the money was recovered from his house and explanation offered by the Appellant was neither reasonable nor satisfactory. Fact is that he had received the money and in the absence of a reasonable explanation as to how the tainted money came to his possession, there would be a presumption that he accepted the bribe and Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is attracted. Hence the explanation offered by the Appellant was not sufficient to rebut that presumption. The Appellant had rightly been convicted by the Special Judge and the High Court had committed no error in confirming that conviction and sentence.