BASANT RAM Vs. STATE OF H.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant challenges his conviction under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (ii) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred as 'the Act').

(2.) The appellant was charged for offences, as aforesaid, on the allegations that a complaint had been lodged by PW6 Atma Ram that the appellant was posted as Patwari in Patwar Circle, Sehali. On 30.8.2008 when the complainant asked the appellant to complete the work of mutation etc., a demand of Rs. 2000/- was made by him. FIR Ext.PW2/A was filed by the complainant where after the formalities of constituting/organizing the trap party, treating the currency notes with Phenolphthalein powder, demonstration of mixing the liquid with sodium carbonate whereupon colour of the liquid changed to pink were completed.

(3.) The learned trial Court has convicted the accused on the grounds that though two witnesses namely the complainant PW6 Atma Ram and shadow witness PW7 Chet Ram have turned hostile, but nonetheless they admitted the filing of First Information Report Ext.PW2/A, their evidence is substantiated by Ext.PW5/B gift deed and Ext.PW6/B, Ext.PW6/C, Ext.PW6/D and Ext.PW6/E, which were the memos of seizure prepared by the police. The learned trial Court lastly invokes the presumption under Section 20 of the Act to hold that the appellant-accused had in fact been caught red handed with the tainted money and in this eventuality, he was sentenced.