RANJIT SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) RANJIT Singh appellant was posted as establishment Clerk in the office of District Education Officer (Primary), Ferozepur when on November 14, 1986 he was caught red handed accepting Rs. 300/- as illegal gratification from Om Parkash, brother of Roshan Lal for getting the transfer order of Roshan Lal issued as Head Teacher in Government Primary School, Gharumi. The appellant was tried by the learned Special Judge, Ferozepur and convicted on October 7, 1988 under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 I.P.C. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years, pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He was also sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years under Section 161 I.P.C. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Feeling aggrieved Ranjit Singh has filed the present appeal.

(2.) IN 1986 Roshan Lal was promoted as Head Teacher and being ill he asked his brother Om Parkash to take his application for posting as Head Teacher at Gharumi, District Fazilka. Om Parkash took the application and got it recommended from the Education Minister at Chandigarh, thereafter Om Parkash went to the District Education Officer at Ferozepur on November 5, 1986 and on learning that the District Education Officer was away to Abohar, Om Parkash followed him to Abohar with the application Ex. PA. Jogjodh Singh Dhillon (PW 1) was the District Education Officer at that time. He made his endorsement Ex.PA/1 on the application. At the relevant time Ranjit Singh was working as Establishment Assistant in the office of the District Education Officer. He accordingly prepared note Ex. PB. It was approved by Jagjodh Singh vide Ex. PB/1. Thereafter, Om Parkash presented the application to the appellant and the appellant demanded Rs. 500/- saying that he would get the work done from the District Education Officer. On the request of Om Parkash the amount was reduced to Rs. 300/-. Om Parkash told the appellant that he would bring the money after a day or two.

(3.) AT the trial charge was framed against the accused appellant under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 I.P.C., to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. The main witnesses examined by the prosecution were Jagjodh Singh Dhillon, retired District Education Officer (PW 1), Om Parkash (PW 6), Inder Singh (PW 7) (witness did not support the prosecution), Sham Lal (PW 8) and Inspector Tara Chand Sharma (PW 9).