JASWINDER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant had faced the trial in FIR No. 21 dated 11.5.2005, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Harish Singh met the appellant for issuance of driving licence to him. However, appellant demanded Rs. 1,000/- for doing the needful. The deal was settled at Rs. 500/-. Complainant along with shadow witness Arun Kumar approached the Vigilance Department on 11.5.2005. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, formal FIR was registered. Complainant handed over one currency note in the denomination of Rs. 500/- to the Deputy Superintendent of Police ('DSP' for short) Manjit Singh who returned the same to the complainant after application of phenolphthalein powder ('PPowder' for short). Complainant was directed to hand over the said currency note to the appellant on demand. Arun Kumar was directed to act as a shadow witness and accompany the complainant to the office of the appellant. Arun Kumar was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant on demand. Harvinder Kalia and Joginder Singh were joined as official witnesses.

(3.) Demonstration with regard to working of P-Powder was shown to the complainant and the other witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the raid. Complainant along with the shadow witness went to the office of the appellant. Complainant handed over the tainted currency note to the appellant on demand. Appellant kept the said tainted currency note in his purse and then he put the purse in his back pocket of the pant. On receipt of signal from the raiding party, DSP along with the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. On search of the appellant, tainted currency note was recovered from the purse kept in the back pocket of the pant worn by the appellant. The driving licence of the complainant was also taken in possession from the table of the appellant.