MOTA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh dated 31.3.2000 by which it dismissed the Criminal Appeal No. 115-SB of 1989 against the judgment and order of the Special Judge, Sirsa dated 9.2.1989 and 13.2.1989 convicting the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and under Section 165 of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to further undergo imprisonment for a period of two months under Section 5(2) of the Act and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year under Section 165 IPC. However, it was directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are that the appellant was employed as Ward Servant in Primary Health Center, Jutawali and he used to visit Village Nohgarh where he came in contact with one Om Parkash, complainant PW.4 who had got himself registered in the Employment Exchange in 1982 and had been invited for an interview for the post of Ward Servant scheduled to be held on 19.10.1987 at Civil Hospital, Sirsa. The appellant gave the impression to Om Parkash, PW.4-complainant that he would be able to help him in selection as a Ward Servant provided he make arrangement of Rs. 2,000/-. Accordingly, Om Parkash complainant paid a sum of Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant at Bus stand, Dabwali. After 2-4 days, the appellant represented to Om Parkash that he could not get his work done with the said amount of Rs. 2,000/- and, therefore, he should arrange a further sum of Rs. 4,000/-. After 4-5 days, the complainant Om Parkash paid Rs. 4,000/- to the appellant at Civil Hospital, Sirsa. The complainant Om Parkash visited Civil Hospital in order to know the result of the selection and came to know that he was not selected. Thus, he contacted the appellant and asked him to return the amount paid for getting the appointment. The appellant continued prolonging the matter for 3-4 months and during this period the appellant sometimes gave Rs. 100/- to Om Parkash and sometimes Rs. 2,00/- and in this way he paid a sum of Rs. 4700/- to him. Appellant refused to return the balance amount of Rs1300/- to the complainant. Thus, the complainant Om Parkash sent application to the Chief Minister, Haryana, through a registered letter raising his grievance. During this period the appellant paid a sum of Rs. 1,000/- and subsequently on 30.8.1988 the remaining balance amount of Rs. 300/-. For the payment of balance amount of Rs. 300/-, the appellant got a receipt executed by the complainant Om Parkash in presence of several witnesses. Though the amount had been paid, however on the complaint sent by the complainant to the Chief Minister of Haryana, investigation was started and appellant was charged under Section 5(2) of the Act and under Section 165 of the IPC.

(3.) During the trial, prosecution examined eight witnesses in support of its case and the appellant/accused took the plea that he had taken the loan from the complainant Om Parkash which he had paid and he had falsely been implicated in the case because of his enmity with one Mani Ram who belonged to Congress Party and was in relation of the then Chief Minister of Haryana. The Trial court after appreciating the evidence reached the following conclusions: