HEM RAJ Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal arises out of the following facts :-

(2.) THE accused Hem Raj was working as a Pharmacist in the Rural Dispensary, Jandoke. On 5th February, 1986, the complainant Rachhpal Singh PW-6 went to the accused in the dispensary for treatment, on which the accused demanded Rs. 100/- to look after him. The complainant, however, showed his inability to pay the amount and the bargain was struck at Rs. 40/-, which were agreed to be paid on the next day. The complainant, thereafter, met Jagtar Singh-PW.7 and informed him about the demand of bribe and they decided to refer the matter to the Vigilance Department. The next day, Rachhpal Singh and Jagtar Singh came to Faridkot and met Vigilance Inspector Baldev Singh-PW.9, who recorded the statement of Rachhpal Singh Ex.PH. The complainant also gave two currency notes of Rs. 20/- each to the Inspector, who smeared those currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder and returned the same to him. The raiding party then left the office and joined one Sukhvarsh Kumar-PW8 an employee of the Public Health Department, Faridkot as one of the members of the party. They then went to village Jandoke and to the dispensary to deliver the amount to the accused on demand. The accused was sitting outside the door of the dispensary and he asked for the payment of bribe money and the same was handed over to him. The accused took the money and put the same in the plastic dabba lying on his table and then started writing the prescription for the complainant. On a signal being given by Jagtar Singh-PW.7, the raiding party reached the spot and apprehended the accused. The Vigilance Inspector disclosed his identity and got recovered the two currency notes of Rs. 20/- each from the dabba Ex.P.3 and after tallying their numbers with the numbers written in the memos Ex.PJ and Ex.PK, the same were taken into possession. The Inspector also prepared a solution of sodium carbonate in a glass tumbler in which both the hands of the accused were got washed and the solution turned pink in colour. This too was taken into possession along with various other items relevant to the prosecution. After completion of the investigation, charge was framed against the accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial.

(3.) WHEN examined in terms of Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations made against him and stated that he had been falsely implicated in this case by Rachhpal Singh and Jagtar Sigh, who were inimical towards him.