KRISHAN KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Accused Krishan Kumar, the then Incharge, R.I. Centre, Mohali District Ropar, was prosecuted for receiving illegal gratification to the tune of Rs. 1,000/-, consequently, he was tried and vide judgment dated 18.07.2001, passed by Special Judge, Rupnagar, convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity 'the Act') and rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) Manjit Singh, an employee of the R.I. Centre Mohali, District Ropar, was transferred from ITI Mohali to Amritsar and thereafter he was again transferred to ITI, Ropar. His pay was wrongly fixed and entered in the service book. He sought correction of the same for which he approached the accused. During transfer, his service book was misplaced but lateron he came to know that the same was lying in R.I.Centre, Mohali. On account of the bargain, arrived between Manjit Singh and the accused, the latter agreed to make the correction in the service book on payment of Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification. Since the complainant was reluctant to pay the said amount, he approached Amrik Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Department, Ropar, who after recording his statement, organized a raiding party; collecting a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from Manjit Singh and after noting down the numbers of the currency notes of Rs. 100/- each in denomination in the memo Ex. PW6/B, applied phenol-patheliene powder on the notes, completed other formalities and handed back the said currency notes to the complainant with a direction that he should give the same to the accused on demand. He also deputed Paramjit Singh as a shadow witness, who on transfer of money to the accused, was to signal the raiding party. Then DSP Amrik Singh recorded the statement Ex. PW6/A and made endorsement on the memo Ex. PW8/C, on the basis of which FIR Ex. PW8/B was registered. Manjit Singh and Paramjit Singh went to the office of accused whereas the remaining raiding party remained behind. After the accused received a sum of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant, Paramjit Singh gave a signal. At this DSP Amrik Singh alongwith other members of the raiding party including Raj Kumar, an independent witness, entered his office. DSP Amrik Singh asked the accused to raise his hands. Mewa Singh, Deput Director to the office of accused was also summoned and a glass of water was requisitioned in which the DSP Amrik Singh mixed the Sodium Carbonate but its colour did not change. Thereafter the fingers of both the hands of the accused were dipped, consequently, its colour turned pink. The said water was put into a nip which was duly sealed. On search of the pocket of the shirt, worn by the accused, a sum of Rs. 500/- were recovered. The numbers of the said currency notes when tallied, were found to be the same as recorded in memo Ex.PW6/A. Despite the search of the remaining pockets, having been made, the remaining currency notes of Rs. 500/- were not recovered. Complainant told DSP Amrik Singh that some private person had come to the accused, who had a talk with him; took some money from the accused and fled away. On further personal search of the accused, one purse containing Rs. 82/-, one ball pen, one identity card and one driving licence was recovered. DSP Amrik Singh also got washed the pocket of the shirt, worn by the accused. Consequently, the colour of the pocket was also turned pink. The water was put in a nip and duly sealed and was taken into possession vide memo Ex.PC. The shirt was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PG and some record was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW2/C including service book of the complainant and attendance register of the staff. DSP Amrik Singh prepared the site plan Ex.PW8/E, recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, challan against the accused was presented in the Court.

(3.) The accused was charged under Section 7 read with Section 13 (2) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and opted to contest.