LAWS(P&H)-2019-2-240

BHAGWAN DASS Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

Decided On February 13, 2019
BHAGWAN DASS Appellant
V/S
STATE OF PUNJAB Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the judgment dtd. 24/5/2004 convicting the appellant in case FIR No. 50 dtd. 8/9/1999, under Ss. 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) 88 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act' registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala to the following effect:-

(2.) The allegations made by the complainant were that on his request a Medical Board had been constituted to examine the injuries on his son. The appellant who was SMO (and who had constituted the Board as per orders of Civil Surgeon, Patiala) had demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000.00 to ensure that the report was in his favour. On the helplessness shown by the complainant bribe amount was reduced to Rs.500.00. Since the complainant, did not wish to pay the bribe, he reported the matter to the vigilance and all necessary preparations for raid were made. The raid was conducted and the money was recovered from the front pocket of the accused/appellant. The appellant having been convicted has preferred this appeal before this Court.

(3.) The first contention of learned counsel is that there is no other evidence of demand and acceptance except that of the complainant. Senior Deputy Advocate General, Punjab argues that as the shadow witness had died, therefore, he could not be produced. Counsel for the appellant has countered the said argument by arguing that though shadow witness had died yet the official witness was also not examined for reasons best known to the prosecution. When asked the reason, Deputy Advocate General, informs that official witness could not be traced. I find explanation unworthy of credence. Admittedly, the official witness was a Government servant and, therefore, it does not lie in the mouth to say that at the time of trial he could not be traced. Even if he had retired by then, the Government must have had his details for the purpose of reviewing his pension etc. In the circumstances, the omission to examine the official witness goes against the prosecution.