JAI PARKASH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and sentence for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') as ordered by the Special Judge vide judgment/ order dated 3.7.2004 in FIR No.13 dated 18.3.2002 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that Complainant Suneel Kumar was running Jyoti Vedio Parlour. Complainant had got a licence in this regard issued by District Magistrate, Sangrur.

(3.) Whenever a new movie was to be displayed, intimation was necessary to be sent in this regard to Sub Divisional magistrate 48 hours in advance. On 20.3.2001 complainant was to display Hindi movie titled 'Sherdil'. In order to furnish information in this regard, complainant approached the office of Sub Divisional Magistrate on 15.3.2002 at 10.00 A.M.. Complainant met the appellant in the office and informed him that intimation be recorded qua display of movie titled 'Sherdil' on 20.3.2002. Appellant, however, raised a demand of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant for doing the needful. The deal was settled at Rs. 1,000/-. Appellant told the complainant to bring application on 18.3.2002 so that the needful could be done.