AJMER SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Corruption is taking progressive dimensions without any hope of atleast ameliorating its effect on the society. It appears to be a general perception that opportunity to serve in civil services is an avenue for personal enrichment and not for the service of people. Appellant convict an Assistant Sub Inspector, In charge of Police Post Company Bagh, Amritsar was sent up for trial under Sections 7/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act') before the Special Judge, Amritsar. Ultimately trial ended in conviction and sentence of the appellant vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.08.2004. Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_562_LAWS(P&H)8_2014_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The factual matrix on which the prosecution version is founded is to the effect that Jaspal Singh complainant was running a factory of manufacturing nails and screw in East Mohan Nagar, Amritsar. On 13.04.2004, his son, namely, Parampal Singh had a quarrel with Ajaybir Singh alias Romi and others and had sustained substantial injuries on his person. A case FIR No.95 dated 16.04.2002 under sections 323/324/148/149 IPC was registered on the basis of statement of Parampal Singh, son of complainant, at Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar. Parampal Singh had suffered injuries on his head and the investigation of the case was entrusted to the appellant, who happened to be incharge of Police Post Company Bagh, Amritsar. Complainant remained busy in the treatment of his son. After the discharge of Parampal Singh from the hospital, complainant approached the appellant convict for redressal of his grievance. Complainant asked the appellant to effect arrest of the culprits. Appellant told the complainant to come to him on the following day. When on the following day complainant met the appellant attitude of the appellant was evasive and even no progress had been made in the investigation of the case registered against the culprits. It is the story set up by the prosecution that complainant had met the appellant-convict 8/10 times. On 23.05.2002, complainant again approached the accused, who told that four accused had been arrested and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for effecting arrest of other four accused. Appellant convict also informed the complainant that other party had also suffered injuries and he had received their MLRs and in case the bribe amount was not paid to him, son of the complainant will be arrested in a cross-case. Complainant told the appellant how his son could be arrested in a false case but the attitude of the appellant remained adamant and kept on demanding bribe. Complainant was told that if he wanted some help, he would have to pay bribe. Ultimately, bargain struck at Rs. 3,000/- and it was settled between the appellant and the complainant that amount of bribe would be paid on the following day at about 4/5 p.m. at the police post itself. A threat was also given to the complainant that in case he did not pay the bribe, appellant would twist the investigation towards son of the complainant. By making a false promise to the appellant, complainant approached DSP, Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. Complainant produced six currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each to the trap laying officer, their serial numbers were noted down in the handing over memo. Currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein. After assuring that complainant was not carrying any other currency notes with him, tainted currency notes were handed over to the complainant with the instructions to hand over the same to the appellant on his demand and that he would not shake hands with the appellant. Ravi Chatrath was nominated as a shadow witness. He was directed to accompany the complainant and watch the transaction of exchange of bribe money. He was further instructed to flash a signal by rubbing his hand on his head to the raiding party. Parvinderjit Singh, SDE, PWD (B&R) and Mithan Chand, JE, PWD (B&R), Amritsar were also joined in the raiding party. They were apprised of the allegations of complainant and were introduced to the complainant and the shadow witness. Demonstration with regard to the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with the solution of sodium carbonate was shown to the witnesses vide separate demonstration memo. A trap party was constituted which left for the Police Post, Company Bagh, Amritsar on a private vehicle. Vehicle was stopped at Novelty Chowk, Amritsar. Complainant and shadow witness were given appropriate instructions and were sent on foot to the Police Post, Company Bagh, Amritsar. Remaining members of the raiding party remained standing outside in a scattered condition. On receipt of settled signal from the shadow witness, raiding party entered the police post located in the Company Bagh, Amritsar in a tent. Trap officer disclosed his identity to the appellant and he was overpowered from his arms. His hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate, upon which its colour became pink. The pink solution was poured in a nip, which was sealed with the seal bearing impression TS and was taken into possession vide hand wash memo. Tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side pocket of the pant of the appellant, which were taken into possession through a separate recovery memo. Personal search of the appellant was conducted. The right side pocket of the pant of the appellant was also washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, upon which its colour turned pink. The pink solution was poured in another nip, which was also sealed with the same seal and was taken into possession vide pocket wash memo Ex.PG. Investigation was conducted at the spot and thereafter the raiding party along with the appellant went to the Police Station Civil Lines, Amritsar where the appellant produced the attested copies of certain documents of case FIR No.95 dated 16.04.2002 registered under Sections 326/324/323/506/351/342/148/149 IPC, which were seized vide separate seizure memo.

(3.) On completion of investigation, appellant convict was sent to face trial before the Special Judge, Amritsar. After completion of formalities of supplying documents etc. to the appellant convict, charge under Section 7/13(2) of the PC Act was framed against the appellant. The appellant convict pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial.