GURMEET SINGH (SINCE DECEASED) Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal brought by Gurmeet Singh against the judgment dated 13.9.2011 passed by learned Special Judge, Sangrur vide which he has been held guilty and convicted for an offence punishable under section 7 read with section 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act ) and the order on sentence of the same date, vide which the appellant has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- for the said offence with further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months in default of payment of fine. It may be mentioned here itself that Gurmeet Singh, the appellant died on 21.4.2004 and this appeal is continued on his behalf by his L.Rs., named, Jaswant Kaur and Jaswinder Singh, widow and minor son of the appellant respectively. The case as registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala vide FIR no. 9 dated 30.1.1995 is as under:- Gurmeet Singh, accused had been field worker of the Housefed and was posted in Barnala Circle. The complainant, who also happens to be Gurmeet Singh, is a taxi driver. He purchased a plot measuring 250 sq. yards at Sekhon Road, Barnala and applied for loan for raising construction of his house thereon with Housefed, Punjab, Chandigarh. Loan in a sum of Rs.80,000/- was sanctioned in his favour. The first installment of Rs.36,800/- was released to the complainant and utilizing that amount, he constructed the walls of the house. The complainant then went to the office of Housefed, Barnala for release of the second installment and handed over the required documents about utilization of the first installment to Gurmeet Singh, accused who had to forward those papers to the head office at Chandigarh. The accused did not do so. On 29.1.1995, the complainant went to the accused and met him. The accused told him that the installment could not be released in this manner. He demanded illegal gratification in a sum of Rs.4,000/- from the complainant. The complainant, however, pleaded with the accused for reducing the amount claiming that he was a poor person and was obtaining loan for even constructing a house. The accused agreed to receive a sum of Rs.3,000/- as illegal gratification on payment of which he agreed to recommend his case to the head office for releasing of the second installment. Gurmeet Singh, complainant told his brother Jasbir Singh in this regard, who did not agree to the proposal of giving bribe to the accused. On 30.1.1995, Gurmeet Singh, complainant went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur and made a statement (Ex. PB) in this regard to D.S.P., Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur, which was sent to Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala, where the case was registered.

(2.) A raid was planned. Demonstration was given to the witnesses explaining them as to how the phenolphthalein powder works in a sodium carbonate solution. Amount of Rs.3,000/- consisting of 30 currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each were produced before Ajmer Singh, DSP of the Vigilance Bureau, Sangrur. He took down serial numbers of the currency notes vide memo Ex.PC and applied phenolphthalein powder to those currency notes and handed them over to the complainant, Gurmeet Singh with the instruction to pay the amount to the accused on demand. Jasbir Singh, brother of the complainant was deputed as a shadow witness and was directed to give signal to the police party after the money changed hands. As per the plan, Gurmeet Singh went to the accused in the office of Area Manager of Housefed, Sangrur. On demand, the complainant paid a sum of Rs.3,000/- to the accused on which Jasbir Singh gave a predetermined signal to the police party headed by DSP Ajmer Singh, who reached the spot on receipt of the signal. Jagdev Singh, Area Manager, Housefed was called to witness the search through inspector Bharthari Singh of Vigilance Bureau.

(3.) Hands of the accused were got washed in the sodium carbonate solution and the said solution, which was colourless, turned pink. The said solution was put in an empty nip, which was sealed with the seal 'BS'. From the front (secret) pocket of the trousers of the accused, the tainted money in a sum of Rs.3,000/-, consisting of 30 currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each, was recovered. Jagdev Singh, Area Manager, tallied the serial numbers of the recovered notes with the serial numbers mentioned in the memo Ex. PC and found the said currency notes to be the same, whose particulars were mentioned in Ex. PC. The concealed (secret) pocket of the pant of the accused was also dipped in sodium carbonate solution and the colourless liquid turned light pink which was also transferred in an empty nip and sealed with the seal 'BS'. The trousers of the accused were given the shape of parcel and sealed with the same seal. The trousers of the accused and the sealed nips containing light pink liquid were taken into possession by way of separate recovery memos. Rough site plan of the place of occurrence was prepared. The case property, including the tainted money and the articles recovered in personal search of the accused were entrusted to Bharthari Singh, Inspector, who deposited the same with MHC Gurcharan Singh, Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. The file of the loan case was produced by Gurbachan Singh, Inspecting Officer, Housefed, Barnala and the same was taken into possession vide recovery memo Ex. PN on 1.2.1995. Appointment and posting orders of the accused were also obtained. After receipt of report of Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh and obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused, challan was prepared and presented against the accused in the court.