CHUNI LAL KOUL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT , Chuni Lal Koul, has been convicted by learned Special Judge Anti -corruption, Jammu, vide its judgment dated 29.1.1996 Under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years and a fine of Rs. 20,000/ -. The appellant was further convicted for offence Under Section 161 RPC and sentenced to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 5,000/ -, however, both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently and in default of making the payment of fine, the appellant was ordered to further undergo imprison - ment of six months on both the counts. Aggrieved by the judgment and order aforesaid, propounded by learned Special Judge Anti -corruption, Jammu, the appellant has impugned its correctness in this appeal.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution, enumerated from record, in nutshell, is that the accused -appellant, while posted as Patwari at Hardu Ichloo, Tangmarg, has demanded Rs. 1000/ - as illegal gratification from the complainant, Wahab Ganai, for issuing him revenue papers for sale of land, which, according, to the complainant, belonged to his nephews, Gulla Ganai and Ama Ganai and who needed the same for its sale in favour of Shamas, Farooqi, prosecution witness. It is further alleged by the prosecution that, as a consequence of demand having been made, Wahab Ganai, complainant, filed a complaint with the Vigilance Organisation, Srinagar, as a result of which FIR No. 24 of 1985 came to be registered against the accused for commission of offence Under Section 5(2) P.O. Act, 2006 BK, read with Section 161 RPC. A team was constituted, headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police (Investigating Officer), Mohd Sayed. The raiding party, besides other members, also included an independent witness, namely Gh. Mohd Shah, Deputy Director, Accounts and Treasuries. After observing the usual formalities, the team proceeded to the spot and the money, demanded by the accused as illegal gratification, was recovered from his possession. After recording the statements of witnesses and on the conclusion of the investigation, challan was presented against the accused in the court of Special Judge, Anti -Corruption, Srinagar, which later on, stood transferred by the High Court to the court of Special Judge, Anti -Corruption, Jammu.

(3.) MR . P.N. Raina, learned counsel appearing for the appellant -accused, at the threshold, has challenged the legality of the judgment passed by the trial court on the ground that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification and further recovery of the tainted money from the possession of the accused by convincing and reliable evidence and this renders the judgment and consequent order of sentence unsustainable in law. Whereas Mr. B. S. Salathia, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, has, stated that the trial court has dealt with every aspect of the matter and all the essential ingredients have been proved by the credible testimony of the witnesses, examined by the prosecution during trial, and, thus, the judgment impugned does not suffer from any infirmity, legal or factual, that requires interference in appeal.