CHAMKAUR SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2003, passed by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, vide which accused -appellant Chamkaur Singh has been held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)(2) [it should be Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)] of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 (here -in -after called the Act) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 01 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Act. He was further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 1 1/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of one month, for the offence punishable under Section 13(i)(d)(2) of the Act. The aforesaid sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this prosecution are that PW4 complainant Rakesh Sharma made the statement Ex.PD before PW11 Pinder Singh, the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau Unit, Ludhiana alleging therein that he and his elder brother Jatinder Sharma are living joint in New Shakti Nagar. His brother Jatinder Sharma has moved an application for installation of the electric meter in their house and had deposited the necessary charges on 20.3.1998. On 27.8.1998 at 09:30 a.m. appellant Chamkaur Singh, the employee of the Electricity Board, having a file and the electric meter, came to their house and asked that the electric meter is to be installed in their house. The complainant asked him to do so. At this, the accused asked where is Jatinder Sharma. Complainant replied that today he has gone to the relatives and he is his younger brother. He should tell to him. Appellant Chamkaur Singh asked him to show the receipt for deposit of security, etc. At this, the complainant showed him both the receipts. Appellant asked that if he will pay him Rs. 800/ - as bribe, he will install the meter. The complainant pleaded that they are poor persons and cannot afford to pay so much amount. Then Jatinder Kumar son of Janak Raj, resident of Mohalla Harbanspura, who was also present along with the complainant, asked the appellant that they are poor person and they will not able to pay so much amount as bribe. Then appellant asked the complainant to pay Rs. 600/ - as bribe and he will just now install the meter. He raised the pretext that he was not having the money. Then the appellant asked him that he will come afternoon and he should arrange the sum of Rs. 600/ - to be paid as bribe to him. Thereafter, the appellant left the place along with electric meter, file and receipts. On the statement of the complainant, FIR Ex.PD/2 was registered.

(3.) AFTER compliance of the provisions of Section 207 Cr.P.C. the appellant was charge sheeted for the offence punishable under Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide order dated 04.11.1999, to which the appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.