GURCHARAN SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 27.11.2007 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Fatehgarh Sahib, whereby he convicted and sentenced Gucharan Singh accused to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- 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 three months and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 2,500/- under Section 13 (2) of the Act or in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

(2.) THE facts in brief are that Kuldip Singh complainant was intending to keep weapon for his own safety as well as for the safety of his family members. After completing all the formalities to obtain arms licence, he submitted an application in the Office of Deputy Commissioner, Fatehgarh Sahib. He had applied for issuance of Double Barreled Gun. For his character verification, the relevant papers were sent by the Office of Senior Superintendent of Police, Fatehgarh Sahib to Police Post Peer Jain. Gurcharan Singh ASI (Accused) being In-charge of the aforesaid police post, had summoned the complainant to the Police Post. After writing the particulars on the paper, this ASI handed over the same to the complainant for getting the same verified from Sarpanch and Numberdar of the village. After verification by Sarpanch Achhar Kaur and Numberdar Karamjit Singh, the relevant papers were returned back to the aforesaid ASI. On 16.5.2005, this ASI again summoned the complainant to the Police Post and told the latter that in case he wants arms licence, then for that purpose, he will have to spend something. To the query by the complainant, it was answered by the ASI that he will have to pay an amount of Rs. 3,000/-. The complainant said that he being a small farmer is unable to pay this amount. Then the amount was settled at Rs. 2,000/- which being not readily available with the complainant, he was directed by the ASI to visit the Police Post on the next day afternoon with the said amount. The complainant by making a false promise to pay Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification went back to his village. He was unwilling to pay illegal gratification. He had a talk with Jaspal Khan that the accused is demanding Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification to make report. The latter suggested the former not to pay illegal gratification and asked him to approach the Vigilance Bureau. Then both went to the Office of Vigilance Bureau, Fatehgarh Sahib where they presented Rs. 2,000/- before DSP to initiate action against the ASI. The statement of Kuldip Singh was recorded. The usual formalities were observed. The complainant as well as the shadow witness Jaspal Khan went to the office of accused. The other members of the raiding party stayed at some distance in scattered position. On demand, the complainant delivered the marked currency notes to the accused. On receipt of the appointed signal from the shadow witness, the other members of the raiding party went inside the office of the accused. Jai Pal Singh disclosed his identity as DSP Vigilance to the accused. Again certain formalities were observed. The numbers of recovered currency notes were tallied with the numbers of the currency notes already noted in the memo through an official witness. The currency notes were seized vide separate memo. On personal search of the accused, one mobile phone with one ball pen was recovered. The same were also taken into possession vide separate memo. The shirt of the accused was got removed. The right pocket of the same was washed off in the solution, colour of which changed to light pink. The solution was transferred into a nip, which was sealed with seal bearing impression 'JPS'. The parcels containing the shirt as well as the nip were also seized. The relevant file concerning licence of the complainant lying on the table was also taken into possession vide separate memo. The accused was put under arrest. After completion of investigation, the chargesheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused.

(3.) AFTER hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal.