VIJAY KUMAR Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) HAVING been convicted for commission of the offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter called the Act) and thereafter having been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of three years with payment of fine of Rs.1,000/ - for the offence under Section 7 of the Act and in default of payment of fine, was furthered ordered to undergo further RI for a period of two months, Vijay Kumar appellant is now in appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case put in a narrow compass is reproduced as below.

(3.) THE prosecution in addition to production of documentary evidence, also examined as many as 9 witnesses to substantiate the charge against the accused. Consistent stand of the accused was that he has been falsely implicated in the case. One Ruldu Ram was examined as DW1 who was tea vendor at court complex at Nakodar, who deposed that no raid was conducted and the accused was hauled up wrongly and was involved in a false and fabricated case.