Lakhbir Singh vs State of Punjab

Sabina, J.—Appellant had faced trial qua commission of offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ''the Act'') in FIR No. 8, dated 15.2.2000 registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Jalandhar. The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 10.7.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant. Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant-Bhagwan Singh had applied for electric connection. Complainant Bhagwan Singh met the appellant-Lakhbir Singh in this regard but the appellant demanded Rs. 2000/- to do the needful. All the documents were completed and the appellant was to release and install the electric connection. On 11.2.2000, appellant-Lakhbir Singh met complainant-Bhagwan Singh in the market and complainant-Bhagwan Singh again requested appellant-Lakhbir Singh to release his connection. Appellant reiterated his demand for payment of Rs. 2000/- as illegal gratification to him for laying the cable and installation of electric connection. The deal was settled at Rs. 800/-. Complainant-Bhagwan Singh approached the Vigilance Authorities along with Jaswinder Singh. Complainant handed over eight currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the Deputy Superintendent of Police-Swinder Singh, who in turn returned the same to the complainant, after application of phenolphthalein powder (''P. Powder'' for short). Numbers of the said currency notes were noted down in a memo. Complainant was directed to hand over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. Jaswinder Singh was deputed to act as a Shadow witness and was instructed to give a signal to the raiding party after the bribe money was accepted by the appellant. The demonstration of working of P. Powder was shown to the complainant and the shadow witness. Thereafter, the raiding party left for the house of the complainant. At 3.00/3.30 pm, appellant came to the house of the complainant and demanded Rs. 800/- from him. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant, who after counting the same, kept them in his shirt pocket. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the remaining members of the raiding party reached the spot. When the fingers of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was put in a nip and was made into a sealed parcel. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink. The said solution was made into a sealed parcel, after putting in nip and was taken in possession.

After completion of investigation and necessary formalities, challan was presented against the appellant. Charge was framed against the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act.

During trial, prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined eight witnesses.

Appellant, when examined u/s 313 Cr. P.C. after the close of prosecution, prayed that he was innocent and had never demanded any gratification nor had accepted the same. He further prayed that he had been falsely involved in this case.

Appellant examined DW 1 Kundan Singh in his defence.

The trial Court vide judgment/order dated 10.07.2004 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant u/s 7, 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.

Learned legal aid counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the appellant has been falsely involved in this case. In fact, the meter could not be installed in the premises of the complainant as the same was not available in the stock of the Board.

Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Complainant as well as shadow witness had duly established the prosecution case.

In the present case, complainant, while appearing in the witness box as PW 3, has deposed as per the prosecution case. Statement of the complainant is duly corroborated by the shadow witness-Jaswinder Singh PW 6. The said witnesses had no enmity against the appellant to have falsely involve him in this case. PW 3 and PW 6 were cross-examined at length but their testimonies with regard to demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant and its recovery from him at the time of raid could not be shaken.

DW 1 Kundan Singh has failed to rebut the statement of the complainant and the shadow witness. Although DW 1 Kundan Singh, in his examination-in-chief, has deposed that no meter was available in the store of the Board in February, 2000 but in his cross-examination, he deposed that the appellant was to supervise the installation of meter and provide connection to the complainant. Thus, the appellant was to install the electric connection in the premises of the complainant. Apart from the oral testimony of DW 1 Kundan Singh, there is nothing on record to suggest that no meter was available with the Board at the relevant time.

Appellant had gone to the house of the complainant at the time of raid. This shows that the appellant had gone to accept bribe money from the complainant in his house. Otherwise, there was no occasion for the appellant to have gone to the house of the complainant. Appellant was caught red handed while accepting bribe. Statements of the complainant and shadow witness with regard to the recovery of tainted currency notes from the shirt pocket of the appellant are duly corroborated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police-Swinder Singh, PW 5. Although PW 7-Satnam Singh was declared hostile but, in his cross-examination by the learned public prosecutor, he has stated that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the shirt pocket of the appellant.

Thus, the prosecution had been successful in proving its case. Hence, the learned trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) punishable u/s 13(2) of the Act. No ground for interference is made out. Dismissed.