AMARJIT SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) AMARJIT Singh son of Bachan Singh has filed the present Criminal Appeal and it has been directed against the judgment and order dated 22.1.1993 passed by the court of Special Judge, Ropar, who convicted appellant under Section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) BRIEF facts of the case are that Amarjit Singh was working as SDO PWD (B&R), Ropar. Jaswant Singh Inspector got a secret information that Amarjit Singh amassed wealth more than his known source of income. He sent ruqa Ex. PW.16/A. The income of Amarjit Singh accused from 1977 to 1983 was Rs. 1,72,310.55. As per allegations of the prosecution the appellant purchased Plot No. 372 situated in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar for a sum of Rs. 15,859.23 in the name of his wife and spent a sum of Rs. 1,53,000/- on the construction of the house. It is further alleged by the prosecution that the appellant also purchased plot No. 348 in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar for a sum of Rs. 55,907.05 in the name of his father. Further allegations of the prosecution are that the appellant also purchased another plot No. 178 for Rs. 14,609.23 in the name of his father in Giani Zail Singh Nagar, Ropar. Further it was stated by the prosecution that the account of Bachan Singh father of the appellant was checked and it was found that he had a very small amount of Rs. 79.16 in account No. 546 and he was having another account No. 786 in which also he had a very small amount of Rs. 98.85. So prosecution alleged that the accused had amassed the property worth Rs. 2,39,553.05 and the appellant could not account for Rs. 67,242.05. Further it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant purchased benami plot in the name of his father. Shri Jaswant Singh who started investigation in this case, took into possession the files of plots No. 372, 348 and 178 vide recovery memo Ex. PA. It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant Amarjit Singh forged record of the Trust. After completion of the investigation of the case, the appellant was challaned in the court of Special Judge who framed the charges against the appellant under Section 5(1)(e) alleging that the appellant was not in a position to account for Rs. 67,242.05 and thus allegedly committed an offence punishable under section 5(1)(e) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. It was also alleged that the appellant committed an offence under sections 465/467/471 of the Indian Penal Code. Charges were read over and explained to the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed a trial.

(3.) THE statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. The incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant. He denied those circumstances and finally he stated that the case was false and PWs have deposed falsely against him.