SHAM LAL Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SHAM Lal, petitioner seeks anticipatory bail in case bearing FIR No. 2 dated 9.1.2002, registered under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') with Police Station-Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

(2.) THE present case was registered on the statement of Dwarka Dass resident of Near Chhatte Wali Gali, Amargarh, District Sangrur. Dwarka Dass claims himself to be the Secretary of M/s Krishna Gram Udyog Samiti (Regd.) Dialpur, Amargarh, District Sangrur. The aforesaid firm is having a Rice Sheller located on Amargarh-Dhuri Road. The firm was entrusted with the work of milling the rice supplied by the Food Corporation of India (for short 'FCI') for the season 2001-2002. Fourteen trucks of rice had been delivered to FCI upto the date of registration of the case. In addition, two trucks loaded with rice were parked in the FCI Depot and were waiting for clearance. On 8.1.2002, the complainant went to the office of FCI at Malerkotla. He met Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh, who were employed as Technical Assistants with FCI. Both of them stated to him that the rice loaded in the trucks would take much time for clearance. They suggested to him to meet Sham Lal, petitioner-accused so that the rice loaded in the trucks is cleared. Thereafter, making him to wait outside the office of Sham Lal, who was posted as Assistant Manager, F.C.I., they went to meet him. Soon after, the complainant was called in the office of Assistant Manager by Jagdish Singh, who in the presence of the Assistant Manager told him that he had talked to the Assistant Manager and that he had not paid the money in respect of trucks which had already been cleared and, therefore, these trucks would now be cleared if he makes payment of Rs. 30,000/-. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount demanded. Upon this Sham Lal told him that if he wanted to get the trucks cleared then he had to pay Rs. 20,000/- as bribe and was asked to come on 9.1.2002 in FCI Depot at Malerkotla along with money. The complainant was also informed that he should pay the money to the person present there and his work would be done. Thereafter, the complainant returned to his Sheller and discussed the matter with Karnail Singh, Helper, who suggested that bribe demanded by the corrupt officials be not paid to them and the matter be reported to the Vigilance Department. Thereafter, a trap was laid and the bribe amount of Rs. 20,000/- was paid to Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh. Sukhdev Singh retrained Rs. 15,000/- with him and handed over th other Rs. 5,000/- to Jagdish Singh. Sukhdev Singh also represented to the complainant that out of Rs. 15,000/- a sum of Rs. 10,000/- shall be paid to Sham Lal and the remaining amount of Rs. 5,000/- shall be retained by him. Both Sukhdev Singh and Jagdish Singh were arrested at the spot. The case is still under investigation.

(3.) OPPOSING the submissions made, learned State counsel has stated that the petitioner-accused had asked the complainant to pay bribe for an amount of Rs. 20,000/- when he met him on 8.1.2002 in his office, therefore, he is fully linked up with the crime despite the fact that at the time of raid conducted he was not present and no amount of bribe was received by him.