GURDARSHAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Convict Gurdarshan Singh has filed the instant criminal appeal to challenge his conviction and sentence ordered by learned Special Judge, Bathinda vide judgment and order dated 17.12.2002, thereby convicting accused Gurdarshan Singh under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short, the 'Act') and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default thereof, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) Prosecution case in brief is that complainant Malkiat Singh retired from Army. He was to receive his gratuity. He received a letter on 13.06.1997 from the office of Defence Pension Disbursement Officer (DPDO), Bathinda requiring the complainant to appear in the said office on 13.06.1997 itself at 10.00 a.m. However, since the letter was received on the same day, the complainant could not appear on that day. He went to the said office on 20.06.1997. The accused who was posted as dealing Clerk met the complainant and told that the documents brought by the complainant were incomplete. The complainant was required to bring complete record on 03.07.1997. Accordingly the complainant along with necessary documents went to the office of DPDO on 03.07.1997 and contacted the accused. The accused after perusing the documents demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification for clearing the case of complainant's gratuity. The deal was struck at Rs.400/-. The complainant promised to pay the same on the next day. On next day i.e. on 04.07.1997, the complainant met Harmander Singh and told him about the demand made by the accused. Harmander Singh advised the complainant to get the accused trapped. Accordingly, the complainant and Harmander Singh went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda where they met Mehal Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP). The complainant made statement to the DSP, which formed basis of the FIR. The complainant gave four currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination to DSP Mehal Singh who treated the same with phenolphthalein powder and returned the same to the complainant. Demonstration to show that solution of sodium carbonate turned pink on coming into contact with phenolphthalein powder was also given. Numbers of the currency notes were noted in memo. Harmander Singh was made shadow witness. Necessary instructions were given to the complainant and the shadow witness. Janardan Mahio, SDO, PWD (B&R) was joined in the raiding party. The raiding party left for the office of the accused. The complainant and Harmander Singh were asked to go to the office of the accused whereas the remaining party stood at some distance. On demand of the accused, the complainant gave him the tainted currency notes. Necessary signal was flashed by the shadow witness to the remaining party who reached the spot. Both hands of the accused were washed in solution of sodium carbonate which turned light pink. It was sealed in a nip. On search of the accused, the tainted currency notes were recovered from left pocket of pants of the accused. Numbers of the recovered notes on comparison tallied with the numbers recorded in the memo. The notes were seized by the police. Pocket of pants of the accused was washed in separate solution of sodium carbonate which also turned light pink. It was sealed in separate nip and was seized by the police. Some record was taken into possession from Dhirendra Pratap, Senior Accounts Officer. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The accused was arrested. Sanction for prosecution of the accused was obtained. Both the aforesaid solutions of sodium carbonate were found to contain sodium ion, carbonate ion and phenolphthalein as per report of Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). On completion of investigation, report under Section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short, 'Cr.P.C.') was presented for prosecution of the accused for offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act.

(3.) Charge under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act was framed against the accused. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.