NAUNIHAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment/ order of sentence dated 27.11.1997 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge CBI, Patiala whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused- appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs. 1500/- as fine and in default of the same to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Act') and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay Rs. 1500/- as fine and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act with a further direction that the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) SHORTLY put, facts of the prosecution case are that Sohan Singh complainant had applied for loan of Rs. 25,000/- to the Punjab and Sind Bank, Sharewala vide application Ex.P.A for the purchase of cycle parts. Loan to the tune of Rs. 10,000/- comprising subsidy Rs. 3,333/- was sanctioned in his favour. On 31.10.1995, he got FDR from the said bank for Rs. 3,000/- for a period of one year. When he approached the accused for release of the loan amount, he was told by the latter that the loan amount has not been received as yet. Subsequently, the accused called him and told that the same has been received. During inspection of the shop, the accused demanded from the complainant Rs. 1500/- as illegal gratification for issuing him the cheque of the loan amount. On the complainant's request, this amount was reduced to Rs. 800/-. He made a false promise to the accused that he would arrange the money and give it to him in the bank. The accused also told the complainant to bring the stamp papers worth Rs. 15/- in his name as well as a guarantor. The complainant met Balwinder Singh Shopkeeper of Village Chak Sharewala and disclosed to him about the demand of bribe of Rs. 800/- made by the accused as a motive for issuing him the cheque of the loan amount of Rs. 10,000/-. Balwinder Singh advised him not to give the bribe. They both approached Ramandeep Singh, DSP Vigilance and disclosed about such demand of bribe. This DSP after completing usual formalities organised a raiding party including the complainant as well as Balwinder Singh who was asked to act as a shadow witness. The party proceeded for conducting raid. On the way PW Gian Chand, Accountant was joined from the office of Public Health, Muktsar. He was introduced to the complainant as also the shadow witness. Sohan Singh as well as Balwinder Singh were sent to the Bank building on foot to approach the accused. The remaining members of the raiding party stood near this building. The complainant asked the accused for the release of the loan amount. On being asked by the accused, it was told by the complainant that he had brought the bribe money. The tainted bribe money was handed over by the complainant to the accused, who put the same in the left pocket of his pent. Balwinder Singh came at the seat of the accused who obtained his signatures on the stamp papers. Thereafter, Balwinder Singh went outside the Bank on the appointed signal given by him, Ramandeep Singh DSP and others conducted the raid. When the hands of the accused were got washed in the sodium carbonate solution, the same turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the left pocket of the pent worn by the accused. The numbers of the recovered currency notes Ex.P2 to Ex.P9 were compared by PW Gian Chand with the numbers already written in a memo. The same tallied. These were seized vide recovery memo Ex.PE attested by PWs Sohan Singh, Balwinder Singh and Gian Chand. Then pent of the accused was got removed. On washing the left pocket of the pent in the solution of water and sodium carbonate, it turned pink. The solution was sealed in a nip Ex.P.11. The pent Ex.P.10 was also turned into a parcel. These were seized vide memo Ex.PF. The Forensic Science Laboratory, Punjab, Chandigarh opined that the contents of nips were of water, sodium carbonate and phenolphathalein powder. The accused being a Central Government employee, the further investigation was handed over to the CBI which registered its own FIR. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the Court for trial of the accused under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

(3.) ON close of the prosecution evidence, when examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against him. He came up with the plea that "I never demanded any bribe from the complainant, nor I accepted the same. The complainant and the shadow witness in connivance with the vigilance officials have got me falsely implicated in this case." In his defence, he has examined DW1 Surjit Singh, DW2 Surinder Singh and closed his defence evidence.