STATE OF HARYANA Vs. SUDESH KAMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the order of Special Judge, Faridkot, dated 6th of September, 1985, whereby, Sudesh Kamal accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) IN brief facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal are that Sudesh Kamal accused was posted as Senior Clerk in the office of Additional Deputy Commissioner, Faridkot. Vir Chand complainant applied for a loan of Rs. 10,000/- and his loan case was forwarded to the Project Officer, Rural Agency, Faridkot, by the Block Development and Panchayat Officer, Baghapurana. On 31.10.1984, the complainant went to the office of the accused in connection with his loan case and there in the presence of Mukhtiar Singh PW the accused demanded Rs. 100/- from the complainant for clearing his loan. The complainant promised to pay illegal gratification to the accused. On 2.11.1984, the complainant accompanied by Mukhtiar Singh went to the office of Inspector, Vigilance and there his statement was recorded by the Vigilance Inspector to whom the complainant also handed over currency note worth rupees one hundred. The number of the currency not was duly noted. Inspector Vigilance then applied phenolphthalein powder to the current note which was hi handed over to Vir Chand complainant who was directed to hand over the currency note to the accused on demand. Niranjan Singh was also joined in the raiding party which went to the office of the accused. Vir Chand and Mukhtiar Singh went inside the office of the accused, whereas, the remaining police party remained in the street at a short distance from the said office. The complainant handed over the currency note of Rs. 100/- Ex P1 to the accused as bribe who put the same in the pocket of his shirt. Mukhtiar Singh who was acting as a shadow witness gave a signal and then the remaining raiding party reached there. After disclosing his identity, the Inspector Vigilance searched the accused and currency note of Rs. 100/denomination was recovered from the pocket of his shirt. The shirt, of the accused was got removed and its pocket portion was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate and its colour turned pink. The hands of the accused .were also washed in a fresh solution of sodium carbonate which also turned pink. The solutions were sealed in different nips and were taken into possession through seizure memos. Currency note Ex P1 and shirt Ex. P2 were also taken into possession vide separate recovery memo. Loan application of the complainant was taken into possession by the Vigilance Inspector. The accused was arrested and after completion of the investigation he was challenged.

(3.) IN order to prove its case the prosecution besides examining the other witnesses examined Vir Chand complainant as PW. 4, Mukhtiar Singh PW. 5, Ramesh Kumar PW 6 and Inspector Sarwan Singh as PW 8. All of them supported the prosecution story as stated earlier.