BHUVNESH GUPTA Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT herein is an accused, who has been tried and convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act') and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay Rs.1,000/ - as fine under Section 7 and one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/ - under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act, vide judgment dated 19.5.2012, passed by learned Special Judge, Bilaspur in Corruption Case No. 2 of 2010, under challenge in the present appeal.

(2.) IN the year 2008, the accused was posted as Naib Tehsildar, Sub Tehsil Bharari, District Bilaspur. The complainant PW -1 Durga Ram, a resident of village Dadhol Khurd had some boundary dispute with his neighbourers Krishan Ram and Ratti Ram. On an application allegedly submitted by PW -1 Durga Ram and his son PW -9 Sanjeev Kumar to Tehsildar, Ghumarwin, the Field Kanungo was directed to carry out the demarcation. The then Field Kanungo Baldev Singh, however, did not give the demarcation to them and on his transfer Nand Lal, (since dead) co -accused of the appellant -accused took over as Field Kanungo and fixed the date for demarcation of the land on the spot on 12.11.2008. He accompanied by the Patwari came to the spot on the date fixed, however, keeping in view the adjoining land was that of the government and as Nand Lal in the capacity of Kanungo was not competent to demarcate the land, demarcation could not be given to the complainant on that day. The complainant had approached the accused in his office on 3.12.2008. Nand Lal, Field Kanungo was also present in the office of the appellant -accused at that time. Said Nand Lal had discussed the matter with the accused and they fixed the date for demarcation of the land of the complainant on 10.12.2008. On the date fixed, the accused accompanied by his co -accused Nand Lal came and demarcated the land on the spot, however, did not fix the boundaries and to fix the same demanded a sum Rs.1,000/ - as bribe from the complainant. The accused told his co -accused, deceased Nand Lal that until and unless Rs.1,000/ - is not paid by the complainant, the boundaries will not be fixed. On 11.12.2008, deceased Nand lal apprised the complainant over telephone about the demand of Rs.1,000/ - made by the accused and that he himself had paid Rs.500/ - to the accused and as such asked the complainant to pay Rs.500/ - to him and Rs.1,000/ - to the accused. He was asked to come to Patwarkhana, Bari (Dadhol) on 23.12.2008, on which date the accused will attest the mutations there. The complainant was not in favour of paying bribe money to the accused and as such, he left for vigilance office to lodge a complaint.

(3.) PW -2 Parkash Chand was associated as shadow witness. As per the arrangement made, the currency notes were to be handed over by the complainant to both accused and giving of currency notes and receipt thereof by the accused were to be witnessed by the shadow witness PW -2, who thereafter had also to inform the police team by giving the agreed signal.