YASHPAL KHANNA Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgement of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 14.12.95, rendered by the Court of Special Judge, Central Bureau of Investigation, Punjab, Patiala, vide which, it convicted the accused (now appellant) and sentenced him, as under : Name of the accused (now appellant) Offence for which convicted Sentence awarded 1 2 3 Yaspal Khanna Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE facts, in brief, are that on 04.03.93, the accused was working as Inspector T.A.-II, Food Corporation of India, Chobal District, Amritsar. He was deputed at Mandi Bhakna Kalan for the kharif procurement 1992-93, vide office order dated 31.08.92. He was also authorized to pass the bills for payment to the supliers from whom the paddy was procured. Jodh Singh, prosecution witness, was a partner of firm M/s J.H. Trading Company. This firm was running the business as commission agent. In September, 1992, Yash Pal Khanna, accused, was working in Bhakna Kalan Mandi, for purchasing paddy on behalf of the Food Corporation of India. 2350 bags of paddy were sold by the firm W J.H. Trading Company to the Food Corporation of India. Payment in respect of 81 bags, was not made to the firm, since the bill was not passed by the accused, in respect thereof. Jodh Singh, and Dhanwant Singh, prosecution witnesses, went to the accused on 03.03.93, and requested him, to pass the bill. The accused demanded Rs. 1000/-, is gratification, other than legal remuneration, for passing the bill. Jodh Singh and Dhanwant Singh, prosecution witnesses, protested that their firm was new, and they could not pay amount. The accused then reduced the demand to Rs. 600/-. Jodh Singh, and Dhanwant Singh, did not intend to pay gratification, other than legal remuneration, to the accused. They pretended that they were not having money, with them, and would pay the same, on the next day. The accused told them to come to Chobal, on the next day, in the Food Corporation of India, godown.

(3.) ON his appearance, in the Court, the accused was supplied the copies of documents, relied upon by the prosecution. Charge under Sections 7 and 13 (i) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, was framed against the accused, to which he pleaded not guilty, and claimed judicial trial.