MANGAL LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS judgment shall dispose of two connected appeals which have been filed by Mangal Lal, District Manager, Food Corporation of India, Bathinda and Balwant Singh, Assistant in the office of the District Manager, challenging their conviction by learned Special Judge, C.B.I., Punjab, Patiala vide judgment dated October 24, 1997 for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The main charge against the appellants was that Mangal Lal had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- from Amrit Pal Goel on April 7, 1995 and asked the bribe giver to hand over this amount to his Assistant Balwant Singh. The bribe money was later recovered from Balwant Singh's possession when the office was raided by DSP Vigilance.

(2.) AMRIT Pal Goel (PW.11) was a partner of M/s. Mauli Ram Cotton Ginning Processing and General Mills, Budhlada. This Mill was supplied paddy for shelling for Government Agencies and after shelling the rice was packed in bags and supplied to the F.C.I. For the purpose, the Corporation allotted space for storage. On April 7, 1995, Amrit Pal Goel met Mangal Lal in his office at Bathinda and asked him to allot space for storing the bags of rice. Mangal Lal demanded Rs. 10,000/- as bribe for allotment of the space and asked Amrit Pal Goel to file an application for the purpose which is Ex.PW.7/1.

(3.) THE trial Court framed eight points for determination and came to the conclusion that demand of bribe had been made by Mangal Lal though acceptance of the bribe by Balwant Singh was at the instance of Mangal Lal. Balwant Singh did receive the money. There was nexus between the two of them. It was also held that there was a valid reason or motive for the appellants to accept illegal gratification which had been demanded by Mangal Lal and was accepted by Balwant Singh on the direction of Mangal Lal. Furthermore, the money was recovered from the possession of Balwant Singh. The various discrepancies and infirmities in the prosecution case were discussed but were found to be not of much importance. Lastly, it was held that the defence pleas were not trustworthy as the incident proved itself. The sanction was found to be valid and the appellants were convicted.