PARMINDERJIT SINGH SODHI Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused (hereinafter referred to as 'accused') against the judgement of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 12/7/2008 passed by learned Special, Nawanshahr, in case FIR No.47 dtd. 18/8/2000 under Ss. 7, 13(1)D read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'PC Act'), vide which he was convicted and sentenced as under:- Offence(s) under Period of Fine Period of sentence Sec. sentence imposed in default of payment of fine 7 of the PC Act RI for 02 years Rs.3,000.00 RI for 03 months 13(1)(d) punishable RI for 02 years Rs.3,000.00 RI for 03 months under Sec. 13(2) of the PC Act 1A. Both the sentences were ordered to be run concurrently.

(2.) As per the case of the prosecution, the accused, a public servant, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000.00 from complainant, Balbir Kaur (PW-1), for granting an undue favour. Complainant PW-1 Balbir Kaur while recoding her complaint Ex.PA, stated that she had been serving as the Sarpanch of village Sanawa since 1998 and was also a member of the Parent Teacher Association (PTA) Committee of Government High School, Sanawa. She alleged that approximately two months prior, Tarsem Lal, son of Bishna, had filed a complaint with the Deputy Commissioner, Nawanshahr against the PTA Committee. In the complaint, it was alleged that the Committee had illegally sold 05 "Tahli" trees, misappropriated the proceeds, and failed to deposit the amount in question. According to the complainant, the Deputy Commissioner had referred the matter to the accused, who was the District Development and Panchayat Officer (DDPO), Nawanshahr, for an inquiry. As a result, the staff of the Block Development and Panchayat Office (BDPO) conducted an investigation and submitted its report to the DDPO. The complainant further stated that on 17/8/2000, she visited the office of the accused, and informed him that the allegations made by Tarsem Lal were baseless and intended to harass the members of the PTA Committee. However, the accused asserted that the complaint contained serious allegations and that, if she wanted a favourable report for the PTA Committee and the members of the Panchayat, she would have to pay him a bribe of Rs.5,000.00. The complainant stated that she informed him that neither the PTA Committee nor the Panchayat members could arrange such a payment, as the sale of the Tahli trees had been conducted legally and the proceeds had been utilized for public welfare. Despite this, the accused allegedly insisted that if she wanted his favour, she should pay him Rs.3,000.00 instead.

(3.) The complainant further stated in the complaint that she left his office under the pretense of not having the required money at that time. On 18/8/2000, she arrived with Rs.3,000.00 in cash, consisting of five notes of Rs.500.00 and five notes of Rs.100.00, as bribe money. However, she did not wish to resolve the matter through bribery and, instead requested legal action against the accused.