RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Applicant-Appellant-Raj Kumar has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Hisar for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('Act' - for short). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years, besides, to pay a fine of 10,000/- for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. He has also been sentenced rigorous imprisonment for four years, besides, to pay a fine of 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. The sentence of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) Learned Counsel for the State has submitted the Custody Certificate of the applicant-Appellant in terms of which the applicant-Appellant has undergone imprisonment of two months and twenty four days till 3.4.2011.

(3.) The appeal is not likely to mature for hearing in the near future. According to learned Counsel for the applicant-Appellant, the applicant-Appellant is an employee of Haryana Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad, which is a Society registered under Societies Registration Act, 1860. The appointment letter of the applicant-Appellant dated 27.12.2005, Ex.-P-7 has been placed on record as Annexure, A-1. According to learned Counsel, the same is an appointment on contract by the State Project Director, Prathmik Shiksha Pariyojna Parishad. According to the learned Counsel for the Petitioner, the case has been registered on the complaint made by the complainant-PW.10, alleging that with the grant of Sarv Shiksha Abhiyaan, a class room was constructed in Government Middle School, Sarhera. On completion of the construction work of the room, the concerned JE had verified the construction and the final payment was also received. However, the applicant-Appellant S.D.E., visited the school and stated that the construction work had not been done rightly done and he could write against him, besides, no one could stop him. The applicant-Appellant demanded for 10,000/- for not writing against the complainant regarding the construction work. The matter was settled for 5,000/-. On the complaint made by the complainant, a trap was laid down by the police. The learned Special Judge, Hisar, it is submitted has misread the evidence and material on record; besides, has not appreciated the aspects of the case in its right perspective. The learned Counsel for the Appellant-applicant has submitted that the Appellant-applicant during the pendency of the appeal is liable to be released on bail.