-1- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. IN THE HIGH COURT FOR THE STATES OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH ... Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. Date of Decision: February 22, 2010. Gurdeep Singh ...Appellant VERSUS State of Punjab ...Respondent 1. Whether the Reporters of Local Newspapers may be allowed to see the judgment ? 2. To be referred to the Reporters or not ? 3. Whether the judgment should be reported in the Digest ? QUORUM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE MOHINDER PAL. Present: Mr.Amar Pal Singh Randhawa, Advocate, and Mr. P.B.S. Goraya, Advocate, for the appellant. Mr. Vishal Munjal, Additional Advocate General, Punjab. -.- MOHINDER PAL, J. In this appeal, appellant Gurdeep Singh has impugned the judgment of conviction and the sentence order dated 25.9.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Jalandhar, whereby he was convicted under Section 13 (2) read with Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short -2- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. `the Act') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and to pay fine of Rs.2,000/- in default whereof to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The appellant was posted as Junior Engineer-II in the Punjab State Electricity Board (for short `the Board'), Kapurthala. Complainant Gian Singh made an application to the Board for increase in the supply of electric load. The complainant met the appellant, who demanded Rs.8,000/- as bribe for increase of the load of electricity. On the request of the complainant, the appellant agreed to accept Rs.5,000/- as advance. The appellant stated that he would himself go to the house of the complainant to receive the money 0n 11.8.1992. As the complainant did not want to pay illegal gratification, he approached the Inspector Charan Singh of the Vigilance Bureau and narrated the whole facts to him. On the basis of statement of the complainant, the instant case was registered. A raid was accordingly organized to nab the appellant. The members of the raiding party included complainant Gian Singh, Jasbir Singh, who was to act as a shadow witness, Building Inspector of Municipal Corporation Jalandhar B.K. Arora, who was joined as an independent witness, Inspector Charan Singh and other police officials. The complainant had produced Rs.5000/- consisting of nine currency notes of the denomination of Rs.500/- each and five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each before Inspector Charan Singh. Their numbers were noted down. -3- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. Phenolphthalein powder had been applied to these notes and these were handed over to the complainant by instructing him to hand over these currency notes to the accused on his demand. Jasbir Singh was to act as a shadow witness. Complainant Ajit Singh and Jasbir Singh went to the house of the complainant and they occupied one of the rooms. The raiding party and the said witnesses concealed themselves in the other room, which was in front of the former room. There was intervening door between those two rooms. After some time, the appellant came there on a scooter. He asked the complainant to pay him money about which settlement had been made. The complainant took the money from the bag and gave the same to the accused. On the signal given by Jasbir Singh, the raiding party reached that place. The accused was counting the money and on seeing the police party he placed the same on the table. He was sitting along with the complainant on a Sofa whereas Jasbir Singh was standing on the back side thereof. Two of the members of the raiding party caught hold of the accused. Numbers of the currency notes which the accused had placed on the table were got compared with the numbers of the currency notes the numbers of which had been noted earlier by the police and those tallied with each other. The appellant was made to wash his hands in the water mixed with sodium carbonate and colour of the solution turned pink. The wash pertaining to the appellant was sealed in the form of parcel and taken into possession by the police. The currency notes were also taken into possession. -4- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. After completion of investigation challan against the accused-appellant was presented in the Court. Charge for the offence punishable under Section 13 (2) read with Section 7 of the Act was framed against the accused, to which he did not plead guilty and claimed a trial. At the trial, the prosecution examined complainant Gian Singh (P.W.1), Jasbir Singh, shadow witness (P.W.2), B.K. Arora (P.W.3), Arun Kumar (P.W.4), Malkiat Singh (P.W.5), Tilak Raj Gupta (P.W.6), Balraj Singh(P.W.7), Santokh Singh, Sub Inspector (P.W.8), Gurcharan Singh Head Constable (P.W.9) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Charan Singh (P.W.10). In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused-appellant denied the prosecution allegations. He pleaded that complainant Gian Singh was inimical towards him as he was suspecting that he was responsible for the raid conducted at his house in connection with the theft of power. Gian Singh joined hands with Inspector Charan Singh. On 11.8.1992, Gian Singh and Jasbir Singh took him from the house of Gurcharan Singh, from where he was returning after the Bhog of `Akhand Path' on the pretext of depositing a sum of Rs.13300/- of the demand notice. The police party placed the tainted money on the table and falsely implicated him in this case. The appellant examined Harjit Singh (D.W.1) and Surjit Singh Chohan (D.W.2). I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and have gone through the records of the case. As has been noticed above, the appellant in this case -5- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. has accepted his presence at the relevant time in the house of the complainant. He also admits the presence of the shadow witness at that time. His claim is that the tainted money was placed on the table by the police party and he had been falsely implicated in this case. The police had no enmity with the appellant to falsely implicate him in such a crime. Gian Singh (P.W.1), from whom the appellant had demanded the illegal gratification and accepted the same, has fully supported the prosecution case. The statement of the complainant has been fully corroborated by the statement of shadow witness Jasbir Singh (P.W.2). The statements of Gian Singh (P.W.1) and Jasbir Singh (P.W.2) have further been corroborated by an independent witness, namely, B.K. Arora (P.W.3), who was Building Inspector of Municipal Corporation Jalandhar, and had no ill-will or malice towards the accused. Deputy Superintendent of Police Charan Singh (P.W.10), the Investigating Officer has deposed about the trap and about catching the appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe. In the presence of this impeccable evidence, the defence version, as mentioned above, pales into insignificance. Proper sanction was obtained by the police before prosecuting the accused. Arun Kumar, Upper Division Clerk of the Board, who appeared as P.W.4 brought before the trial Court the original order pertaining to the sanction for the prosecution of the accused. He stated that he had been working with Mr. Gurvinder Singh, Chief Engineer and was acquainted with his handwriting and signatures. He testified that original sanction order Exhibit P.W.4/A -6- Criminal Appeal No.1002-SB of 1999. bore the signatures of that Chief Engineer. Admittedly, the Chief Engineer of the Board is the appointing and punishing authority of the Junior Engineer. Thus, he was competent to remove the accused from his office. The sanction order was to be passed by him and the same was done accordingly. The facts and circumstances, discussed above, clearly show that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant, who was a public servant, from the complainant has been clearly established on record by the prosecution by leading the evidence, discussed above. Consequently, the judgment of conviction rendered by the learned trial Judge is upheld. However, keeping in view the fact that the incident relates to August, 1992, and Sword of Damocles has remained hanging on the head of the appellant for more than seventeen years, the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of two years awarded to the appellant by the trial Court under Sections 7, 13 (2) of the Act is reduced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The sentence of fine and the default clause shall remain unaltered. The impugned sentence order is modified accordingly. With the above modification in the impugned sentence order, this appeal is hereby dismissed. February 22, 2010. ( MOHINDER PAL ) ak JUDGE