Criminal Misc. No.M-25828 of 2008 -1- **** IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Criminal Misc. No.M-25828 of 2008 Date of decision : 21.10.2008 Sukhwinder Pal Singh Purewal .....Petitioner Versus State of Punjab ...Respondent CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S. D. ANAND Present: Mr.Gulzar Mohd., Advocate for the petitioner. Ms. Manjari Nehru, Deputy Advocate General, Punjab for respondent-State. **** S. D. ANAND, J. The petitioner, an accused ( in case FIR No., 277 dated 12.9.2008 under Sections 13(1)(B), 7,8,9 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, 420, 120-B IPC, Police Station Nakodar,) is a party to a cause pending in the Court of the indicated Judicial Officer. A lady official is posted as Reader in her Court. Her husband and a Numberdar ( a close friend of the husband of the former lady official) of the indicated village got into touch with the petitioner and 'conveyed' to him a demand made by the Judicial Officer concerned for payment of illegal gratification of Rs.10 lacs if he wanted his case (for the release of an FDR amounting to Rs.55 lacs) to be decided in his favour. They further informed that if the amount afore-mentioned was not paid, the matter would be decided against him. The petitioner, who is an NRI and was engaged in a controversy with Criminal Misc. No.M-25828 of 2008 -2- **** regard to entitlement of the FDR amount aforementioned with his maternal uncle paid up the amount to lady official aforementioned who had given an assurance that the matter would be decided in his favour. The case, however, came to be transferred from that Court to another Court. The lady official aforementioned did not return the amount of Rs.10 lacs to the petitioner-applicant. The claim, abortive though, made by the petitioner for being accorded the nomenclature of a 'whistle blower' is not in order. The present is not a case in which illegal gratification had been demanded from the petitioner and he aired the grievance before the learned Sessions Judge against the Judicial Officer. On his own showing, he had already 'paid' an illegal gratification of Rs.10 lacs to the Judicial Officer concerned and his grievance, in the course of the complaint made to the Sessions Judge, was that the Court official concerned and her husband, through whom the 'deal' had been made for securing a favourable adjudication of a judicial matter had neither been able to get the matter, settled nor were they inclined to 'return' the amount of illegal gratification. It is, thus, obvious that the petitioner was a party to the payment of 'illegal gratification' . Learned counsel for the petitioner/applicant argues that the petitioner is protected from prosecution in terms of provision of Section 24 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. That provision is reproduced as under for the facility of reference:- “24. Statement by bribe giver not to subject him to prosecution:- Notwithstanding anything contained in any law for the time being in force, a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Criminal Misc. No.M-25828 of 2008 -3- **** Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 of Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under Section 12.” As would be evident from a perusal of above quoted provision of the Act, it would apply only if the following condition pre-exists:- (a) It should be a statement made by a person in any proceeding against a public servant for an offence under Sections 7 to 11 or under Section 13 of Section 15, that he offered or agreed to offer any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing to the public servant, shall not subject such person to a prosecution under Section 12. The provision aforementioned does not conceptualise a person who had already paid up the demanded amount of illegal gratification and is nursing a grievance against either the public servant complained against or inter-mediary that the 'agreed job' had not been done and amount paid as 'illegal gratification' was also not being refunded. The acceptance of the advocated point of view would amount to validating an endeavour made by 'willing' bribe giver, who finds that he is being ditched either by the public servant concerned or by the inter- mediary. In the light of fore-going discussion, I do not find the present to be a fit case for the grant of anticipatory bail to the petitioner. Dismissed. October 21, 2008 (S.D. ANAND) Pka JUDGE