GURMEET SINGH Vs. STATEOF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 14.5.2003 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Gurmeet Singh to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, 'the Act') and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 under Section 13 (2) of the Act or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Shamsher Singh complainant being JBT Teacher had sent his income tax statement for the year 1998-1999 to the office of Block Primary Education Officer, Sirhind-I. He had filed a medical bill worth Rs. 15,000 in respect of his wife Surjit Kaur by claiming deductions under Section 80DDB of the Income Tax Act. His statement was accepted by the office and he was paid salary giving benefit of deduction to the stated extent. However, on 24.5.1999, he received a letter from the office calling upon him to deposit a sum of Rs. 13,000 towards income tax and his form No. 16 was withheld. On receipt thereof, he contacted the accused on 3.6.1999 in his office being a dealing hand, who disclosed that his case has been sent to Income Tax Department and he is to pay Rs. 13,000 along with interest in that regard and in case he pays Rs. 1,000 as illegal gratification to him, he would do the needful in the matter and render favour to him. The complainant pleaded his inability to pay that much amount and on his imploring, the accused agreed to accept Rs.800. The complainant disclosed these facts to Hardev Singh, President of Government Teacher's Union. They both came to the Office of Vigilance Bureau, Fatehgarh Sahib and presented currency notes worth Rs.800 for arranging the trap on the accused. After observing usual formalities, the raiding party including Narinder Kumar PW was arranged. Thereafter, such party went to the office of the accused. Shamsher Singh complainant and Hardev Singh shadow witness were sent ahead, while the other members remained behind in waiting for the signal. After sometime, on receipt of the appointed signal from the shadow witness, the raid was conducted. The accused was found sitting in his office. He was caught hold from his wrist. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the almirah of the accused. These were seized vide recovery memo. After completing the formalities, the accused was put under arrest. On completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused.

(3.) The accused was charged under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. To bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined PW1 Bhag Singh Senior Assistant, Office of DPI, Punjab, PW2 Kulwant Singh Clerk, PW3 Shamsher Singh complainant, PW4 Hardev Singh shadow witness, PW5 Surinder Kaur Block Primary Education Officer, Sirhind-I, PW6 Narinder Kumar, PW7 Constable Harminder Singh, PW8 Constable Nirmal Singh, PW9 MHC Gurbhej Singh, PW10 Kashmir Singh Bhindcr DSP Investigator and closed its evidence. When examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, the accused admitted to be on duty at the relevant time in his office, but denied if the complainant met him on the day of raid. He came up with the plea that form No. 16 was issued to the complainant on 15.4.1999, who did not attach any bills claiming deductions along with form No. 10(1) and that form No.24 was deposited in the Office of Assistant Commissioner Income Tax, Patiala on 24.5.1999 and that the letter was written to the complainant for non-deposit of income tax on 25.5.1999. Besides this, he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him and pleaded innocence as well false implication. He had summoned Gurdeep Singh Senior T.A Income Tax Office, Patiala to examine in his defence, but this witness stated that the record required in this case is not in our office as the same was transferred to Income Tax Office at Gobindgarh and that Photostat copy of the document Mark X bears the stamp of our office and it appears to have been signed by the receipt clerk of the office. He did not adduce any other evidence in his defence.