SARWAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is filed against the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the Special Judge, Ludhiana in Corruption Case No. 4/2 of 1986, dated 22.5.1986.

(2.) ACCORDING to the case of the prosecution, the de facto-complainant Sohan Singh required a copy of the jamabandi of land for it in a Court of law. Therefore, he approached the accused on 3.6.1985 as the accused was working as Patwari of halqa Dangon. The accused demanded a sum of Rs. 200/- from Sohan Singh to issue a copy of the Jamabandi. Sohan Singh agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 150/-. As yet he had no ready money with him therefore, complainant told him that he would meet him on the next day with the money to get the copy. Accordingly, complainant Sohan Singh and Sher Singh contacted the Vigilance Department at Ludhiana on 4.6.1985 and narrated the incident to Inspector Amar Singh. Thereafter, the Inspector recorded the statement of Sohan Singh Ext. PA and registered a case. Thereafter, the Inspector handed over three 50 rupee denomination currency notes to Sohan Singh after treating them with chemical powder and asked Sohan Singh to give it to the accused. Accordingly, de facto-complainant Sohan Singh and Sher Singh went to the village Patwar khana and Sohan Singh met the accused and the accused told him that he was preparing the copy and the jamabandi was not yet ready. The accused asked them to reach at the Bus stop Pakhowal where he was reaching with the copy of the jamabandi. Thereafter, Sohan Singh and Sher Singh came back to the Bus Stop and informed the Police that the accused has asked them to reach Pakhowal. Then all of them went to Pakhowal in a jeep and the Police party dropped Sohan Singh at the Bus Stop Pakhowal. Thereafter the accused reached there. There the accused met Sohan Singh and Sher Singh and demanded an amount of Rs. 150/- from Sohan Singh who handed over the three fifty rupees denomination currency notes to the accused and gave a signal to the police party. Thereafter, the police party came and the Inspector recovered those three currency notes of fifty rupees denomination from the possession of the accused and the hand of the accused was dipped in a glass of water and the colour turned pink. The currency notes were same which were handed over by the Inspector to Sohan Singh. After completion of the investigation, the police filed the charge- sheet against the accused for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the 'Act'). The learned Special Judge framed the charge against the accused to which the accused pleaded not guilty. In order to support its case, the prosecution examined nine witnesses. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the accused was examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The accused in defence examined six witnesses. On a consideration of the evidence on record, the learned Special Judge convicted the accused for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act and sentenced the accused for a period of 1-1/2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- for the offence under Section 161 IPC. Aggrieved by the said conviction imposed by the learned Special Judge, the accused preferred the above appeal.

(3.) A reading of the testimony of P.W. 2 clearly shows that there was some litigation between him and sister of his brother-in-law. It is also in his evidence that the accused made certain entries in regard to the property left by his sister-in-law to which P.W. 2 objected. It is also in evidence that he had already obtained a copy of the jamabandi from the accused. According to the case of the prosecution, the accused demanded Rs. 150/- from P.W. 2 for giving a copy of the jamabandi. But it is a fact that P.W. 2 had obtained a copy of the jamabandi earlier to 3.6.1985.