ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT - Roop Chand has directed the present appeal against the judgment and order dated 13.8.2002 passed by Shri M.S.Chauhan, Special Judge, Amritsar vide which accused/appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, (in short ­ the Act) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three months under Section 7 of the Act and to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that on 21/22 -2 -2000 documents of the passengers coming to India from Pakistan by Samjhauta Express were to be checked on different counters on the Attari railway station. Inspectors and Sub -Inspectors of the Police were on duty on different counters, whereas a constable or Head constable was deputed to assist them on each counter. The Sub Inspector/Asstt. Sub Inspector In - charge of the counter was responsible for the checking of documents of the passengers and after having found the documents to be correct to make an entry and put seal on the passport as also put the counter number and his own signatures and enter the details in his register maintained on the counter. At about 10.30p.m. DSP Simarjit Singh, and Inspector Anil Kumar were supervising the checking of the passengers on P.C.P. Attari Railway Immigration Centre, Counter No.9 was under the charge of the accused. Constable Amarbir Singh No.3084/Batala was also on duty with him. This counter was meant for checking of passports old immigration papers of Pakistani nationals.

(3.) ON appearance of the accused, copies of documents were supplied to the accused free of costs. Charge under Sections 13(1), 13(2) and Section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.