RAM KUMAR Vs. THE STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Raghbir Singh, working as S.D.O. in Punjab State Electricity Board, Thermal Plant, Bathinda, alongwith Ram Kumar, J.E., in the same department were prosecuted for an offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act"). The trial Court, however, acquitted Raghbir Singh but found Ram Kumar guilty of an offence under Sec. 7 read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act. He was sentenced to suffer RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/ -. He was also directed to undergo RI for one month in default of payment of fine. He is, thus, in appeal before this Court to impugn the order of his conviction and sentence as awarded.

(2.) The facts, in brief, are that appellant Ram Kumar was working as Junior Engineer, at the office of P.S.E.B., at Maur, whereas Raghbir Singh was working as S.D.O. at Thermal Plant, Bhatinda. Allegation is that Ram Kumar accepted a sum of Rs.3,000/ -as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Balaur Singh, PW, as a motive or reward for issuing tubewell connection. S.D.O. Raghbir Singh is alleged to have conspired with appellant Ram Kumar in this regard and allegedly helped him in causing dis -appearance of the evidence.

(3.) Balaur Singh (PW4) and his family owned 20 killas of land, which they were jointly cultivating. He had applied for an electric connection for tubewell in the year 1992 in the office of S.D.O., Maur. Demand notice was issued to him and he was directed to file test report. PW4 submitted the test report in the office of S.D.O., P.S.E.B., Maur. Appellant Ram Kumar, being J.E., was Incharge of the area. He visited the village and while returning had told PW4 that the test reports are not passed without consideration and accordingly told him to visit his office. It is further alleged that about 15 days prior to the raid, an employee of Punjab State Electricity Board at Maur visited the house of PW4 and told him to submit a fresh test report. PW4 also alleges that he had personally gone to the office of SDO on 17.3.1993 and had submitted the test report alongwith the letter, when SDO was not present in his office. At that time, appellant Ram Kumar met him and took him to his office. There the appellant is alleged to have raised a demand of Rs.5,000/ -as a bribe for releasing the electric connection. The complainant, however, left the place without making any commitment. Appellant Ram Kumar visited the village again on 25.3.1993 and enquired from the complainant if he needed electric motor connection or not. The complainant, at that stage, stated that the demand of Rs.5,000/ -was excessive and so a sum of Rs.3,000/ -was agreed as bribe. The complainant claims that he had falsely promised so the appellant had statedly left satisfied. Complainant Balaur Singh shared this demand with his co -village Tehla Singh, who advised him not to pay any bribe and to report the matter to Vigilance Bureau. They both accordingly went to the office of Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda and narrated the entire episode to Inspector Tek Singh. The statement made by Balaur Singh (Ex.PD) was recorded and thumb marked by him. Balaur Singh also presented currency notes amounting to Rs.3,000/ -. 3 notes out of these were of Rs.500/ -denomination whereas remaining 15 notes were of Rs.100/ -denomination. As per the usual practice, the serial numbers of the notes were noted down and the currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, these were handed back to Balaur Singh with a direction to pay the same to the appellant on demand. The demonstration of the hand wash was also shown to Pws. Tehla Singh was associated with the raiding party as a shadow witness. He was instructed to transmit the pre -arranged signal immediately, when the amount was accepted by the appellant.