GURNAM SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 13(2) and 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act') in FIR No. 190, dated 13.10.1988 registered at Police Station Verowal. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 05.05.2003 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 13(1) (a) punishable under Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant.

(2.) Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant- Harbans Singh had approached the appellant for a copy of the jamabandi. Appellant had demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe. Complainant approached the Vigilance Authorities along with Surinder Singh. Complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 20/- each to the Vigilance Inspector who returned the same to the complainant after application of Phenolphthalein powder. Complainant was directed to hand over the said currency notes to the appellant on demand. A raid was organised. Karam Singh, Panchayat Secretary was joined as official witness. Surinder Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness and was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant . Complainant along with shadow witness entered the Office of the appellant. On demand, complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant. The said tainted currency notes were kept by the appellant in his shirt pocket. On receipt of signal from shadow witness, Vigilance Inspector along with the remaining raiding party reached the spot. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solutions turned pink. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink.

(3.) After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. During trial, prosecution examined 8 witnesses in support of its case.