KARAMBIR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 30.10.2007 passed by the court of learned Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, Panchkula, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Karambir to undergo substantive imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000.00 under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for five months and also sentenced him to undergo substantive imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Sec. 13(1)(d)(i) of the Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month and further sentenced him to undergo substantive imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000.00 under Sec. 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month with a further direction that all the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) The facts in brief are that Jai Singh made complaint to the Superintendent of Police State Vigilance Bureau, Panchkula containing the allegations that the accused Karambir had demanded Rs. 500.00 for continuing 'kundi' electricity connection in the house of his employer Sanjeev Sayal. The usual formalities were observed. The raiding party including Satish Kumar Tehsildar, Panchkula proceeded to the spot. Jai Singh complainant and the shadow witness Nihal Singh went to Sanjeev Syal's house under construction situated at Morni over the hill top. On receipt of appointed signal from the shadow witness, the raiding party reached the spot. The Investigator apprehended the accused and recovered one currency note in the denomination of Rs. 500.00 from the pocket of his shirt. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused.

(3.) The accused was charged under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d)(i) and 13(1)(d)(ii) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to substantiate its allegations against the accused, the prosecution examined PW-1 Manjit Singh ASI, PW-2 Gurcharan Singh EHC, PW-3 Ravinder Kumar ASI, PW-4 Jagseer Singh Constable, PW-5Ajmer Singh Executive Engineer, PW-6 Satish Kumar Tehsildar, PW-7V.S.Dahiya, PW-8 Rajinder Pal DSP, PW-9 Jai Singh, PW-10 Nihal Singh Inspector (shadow witness), PW-11 Karta Ram Inspector and closed its evidence. When examined under Sec. 313 of Crimial P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He came up with the following plea:-