RANDHIR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment of conviction and order of sentence, both dated 8.4.2003 passed by Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, vide which accused -appellant Assistant Sub -Inspector Randhir Singh was held guilty in case FIR No.54 dated 18.9.1999 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala for commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and was sentenced as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_547_LAWS(P&H)3_20141.htm</FRM>

(2.) THE prosecution case, put in a narrow compass, is as under: The accused was posted as ASI in Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. M/s North India Pipe Limited, Dirba, District Sangrur was engaged in manufacturing of iron pipes after purchasing raw material from Mandi Gobindgarh. Thereafter, it used to sell their final products i.e. iron pipes in the open market in and outside the State of Punjab. For bringing raw material from Mandi Gobindgarh to their company and for sending the finished products in and outside the State of Punjab, the company was using its own trucks. Truck No.PB -13G -1684 of the company had met with an accident on 15.9.1999. The said truck had been impounded by the police of Mandi Gobindgarh. Baldev Singh, an employee of the company on coming to know of the accident had sent the information to Megh Raj, Director of the company. The truck was to be released on Superdari. The matter regarding involvement of driver of their truck was to be solved. On 17.9.1999, accountant Baldev Singh went to the Court Complex, Amloh and for release of the truck on Superdari, had made an application through a lawyer. This application was marked to SHO, Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh for his report. The complainant accompanied by accountant Baldev Singh, then went to Police Station, Mandi Gobindgarh. The accused was investigating the said case. He demanded Rs.25,000/ - for making report on the application for release of the truck on Superdari, to which proposition the complainant did not agree. Finally, the matter was settled at Rs.8,000/ -. As the complainant did not want to pay the bribe money, he came back with a false promise to the accused to meet him again on 18.9.1999. On return to his office at Dirba, the complainant talked about the entire episode to his Munim Narain Dutt.

(3.) ON being charge -sheeted for commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.