GURMEL SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment of the Special Judge Ludhiana, dated August 27, 1983, by which the appellant Gurmel Singh was convicted under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo one years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-

(2.) The appellant was working as Patwari Halqa Rajgarh at the relevant period. The prosecution case is that Mukhtiar Singh complainant (PW4) contacted him on February 4, 1983 in the Patwarkhana at Doraha to obtain copies of Jamabandi and a Kharsa Girdawari. He demanded bribe of Rs. 100/- to supply the same. However, on bargaining he agreed to accept Rs. SO!-. It was agreed that the complainant would pay the money on February 7, 1983. Mukhtiar Singh (PW 4) reported the matter to the Inspector Vigilance Ram Sarup (PW 6) on Feb. 7, 1983 who organized a raid to entrap the appellant while receiving the illegal gratification. The complainant produced currency notes of Rs. 50/- to which the Inspector Vigilance applied the requisite chemical. Thereafter the currency notes were returned to the complainant with the direction to pass on the same to the appellant. The raiding party went to Doraha where the Vigilance Inspector associated Ranjit Singh (PW5) and the role of shadow witness _was assigned to him. He was asked to watch the proceeding at the time of the giving of the bribe by the complainant to the appellant. Then Mukhtiar Singh (PW4) and Ranjit Singh (PW5) went to the Patwarkhna where the bribe money changed hands. The currency notes were put in his coat-pocket by the appellant. After that the appellant came out of the Patwarkhana followed by the complainant and the shadow witness. The latter made the agreed signal, on seeing which Inspector Ram Sarup (PW6) rushed forward and after disclosing his identity seized the currency notes which had been thrown by the appellant on the ground on seeing him. Hands of the appellant were dipped in a solution of water and sodium carbonate which turned pink. The serial numbers of the currency notes tallied with the numbers which were earlier noted by the Vigilance Inspector while handing them over to the complainant to be passed on the appellant. On the recovery of the currency notes from the possession of the appellant a case under section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered against him.

(3.) At trial the prosecution story was supported by the complainant Mukhtiar Singh (PW 4), the shadow witness Ranjit Singh (PW 5) and the Vigilance Inspector Ram Sarup (PW 6). The appellant when examined under section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, alleged false implication. He stated that the complainant and the shadow witness were inimical towards him and on that account in order to involve him in this case the complainant had tried to put the currency notes in his pocket but he had thrown them on the ground. He said that at that stage the Police party had come at the spot.