TARLOK SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by Tarlok Singh, Line Superintendent of the Punjab State Electricity Board against the judgment and order dated 30th April, 1981 of the Special Judge, Gurdaspur convicting him under sections 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161, Indian penal code and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 500/- in default of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months under section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 250/- in default of payment of which to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for three months under section 161 Indian Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts of this case are that the complainant Beant Singh had been allotted electric connection at Sr. 119 in the list of seniority. He came to know that connections had already been given to other persons upto serial No. 164 in the said list. He, therefore, approached the appellant on 5th September, 1979 and requested him to release the connection in his favour also. The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- to do this job. Beant Singh promised to pay the bribe money on the following day. As he had no intention to pay the money demanded by the appellant, therefore, on 6th September, 1979, he contacted Shri Jaswant Singh, Inspector Vigilance at Gurdaspur who recorded his statement Exhibit PC on the basis of which a formal First Information Report was recorded. Sukhpal Singh (PW. 7) was also present at that time. Beant Singh produced five currency notes (Exhibits P. I to P, 5) of the denomination of Rs. 20/- each which were initialled by the Inspector who applied the phenolphthalein powder thereto and returned the same to Beant Singh after noting their serial numbers in the Memo Ex. PJ. Sukhpal Singh PW was deputed as a shadow witness. Beant Singh and Singh accordingly went to the office of the appellant followed by the police party. The appellant inquired from Beant Singh if he had brought the bribe money of Rs. 100/- to which Beant Singh replied in the affirmative The appellant took Beant Singh to his residence which was quite close to his office and there in front of the house, Beant Singh handed. over the currency notes to the appellant who put the same in his Bushint pocket and then entered his residence saying that he would return in a short while. When the appellant emerged from his house. Sukh Pai Sing], PW shadow gave the agreed signal in pursuance of which Inspector Jaswant Singh accompanied by two constables reached the spot. He disclosed )lis identity to the appellant and joined three independent witnesses namely Shargara Singh, Subhash and Prem Singh and in their presence, searched the person of the appellant. Although Rs. 1201, in cash and an identity card were recovered from the hip pocket of the appellant, but the bribe money was rot found. The Inspector Vigilance thereupon interrogated the appellant regarding the bribe money and he disclosed having kept the same concealed in his papers in the almirah in his residence and offered to get the same recovered.

(3.) THE appellant in his statement under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure contended that he had been falsely implicated in the case by Beant Singh because be had not complied with the request of Beant Singh to give him the electric connection immediately out of turn. He further stated that previous Beant Singh had obtained a temporary connection on 1th May, 1979 which was disconnected on 23rd May, 1979 but even after the disconnection, Beant Singh was using the electricity without any authority by connecting the wires with the pole and the appellant held got these wires disconnected and had also reported against him to the Sub Divisional Officer. The appellant submitted that regular connection had been given to Beant Singh on 20th August, 1979 and, therefore, there was, no occasion for him to demand the bribe of Rs. 100/- from Beant Singh on 5th September, 1979 for giving a connection which had already been given The appellant produced sonic documentary evidence in defence to prove this contention.