LAWS(P&H)-2004-2-13

HARINDER PAL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 25, 2004
HARINDER PAL SINGH Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner-accused, who is serving as Junior Telecom Officer (J.T.O.) in Telephone Department, had filed the instant petition for setting aside the order dated 29-1-2003 (Annexure P-6) passed by Special Judge, CBI, Punjab, Patiala, vide which the closure report submitted by the CBI in Case RC No. 33/2000/CHG, dated 22-11-2000 under Sections 7, 13(l)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act'), was not accepted and the matter was sent for re-investigation.

(2.) The case against the petitioner was registered for the offences under the Act, mentioned above, on the complaint made by one Parminder Singh to DSP Vigilance Bureau, Ludhiana, alleging therein that the petitioner was demanding Rs. 500/- as bribe for shifting his telephone from one business premises to another. Accordingly, a raiding party was constituted by associating the complainant Parminder Singh, a shadow witness Charanjit Singh and two recovery witnesses. A trap was laid on 6-6-2000, thereby allegedly catching the petitioner red handed while accepting bribe of Rs. 500/- from the complainant.

(3.) The matter was investigated by the CBI. After thorough investigation, a closure report dated 29-5-2001 (Annexure P-l) was submitted by CBI, stating therein that during investigation it was revealed that old telephone number of the complainant had already been closed on 2-6-2000 and new number was allotted to him on 3-6-2000, which fact was very much in the knowledge of the complainant. As per the record collected during the investigation, it was found by the CBI that after executing the shifting work, a Jumper Slip (Annexure P-2) was issued on 1-6-2000 i.e. much before 6-6-2000, the date of trap, therefore, as on the date of trap nothing was pending with the petitioner with regard to shifting of the telephone, thus, there was no motive for the petitioner to demand any money from the complainant. In the closure report, it was further mentioned that there was no independent witness to observe the demand and acceptance of the bribe money by the petitioner as the complainant and the shadow witness are very good friends for the last many years. Further, it was found that when the team and recovery witnesses reached the spot the bribe money was lying on the ground.