Judgement

DUTT, J. :- This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment of the Punjab & Haryana High Court affirming the order of conviction of the appellant under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under S. 161, IPC, and also upholding the sentence of fine as passed by the learned Special Judge, Sangrur, but reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment under S. 161, IPC has been sustained. Needless to say, the sentences of imprisonment have. been directed to run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case is that P.W. 4 Gurcharan Singh had entered into an agreement to mortgage his land to one Baldev Singh for Rs. 55,000/-, and for the purpose of effecting the mortgage, he required a copy of the Jamabandi. The appellant, who is the revenue Patwari of the village, was approached by P.W. 4 on March 3, 1981 when he demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- for supplying a copy of the Jamabandi. The amount was settled at Rs. 200/-. It was arranged that P.W. 4 would meet the appellant at the canal bridge at 3.00 P.M. on that day. P.W. 4 was advised to go to the Vigilance Inspector. Sangrur. Accordingly, he went there and made a statement to the Vigilance Inspector. Gurdial Singh (P.W. 7). P.W. 4 also handed over to P.W. 5 two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. P.W. 5 applied phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes, noted their numbers and handed back the same to P.W. 4. Thereafter, P.W. 4 along with P.W. 5 and some constables went to the village and joined P.W. 5 Dev Singh and P.W. 6 Ram Sarup and went to the canal bridge in a jeep. Gurcharan Singh was instructed to pay the money to the appellant and Dev Singh was asked to follow Gurcharan Singh and give a signal after the money had been paid.

3. The appellant came to the canal bridge at about 3.15 P.M. and demanded money from Gurcharan Singh who handed over the marked currency notes to the appellant. The appellant put the notes in the inside pocket of his coat. At that point, Dev Singh gave the signal whereupon Gurdial Singh, the Vigilance Inspector and other members of the raiding party apprehended the appellant. The Vigilance Inspector disclosed his identity to the appellant and got his person searched and recovered the currency notes.

4. After completion of the investigation, the appellant was charged with the offences and sent up for trial.

5. The learned Special Judge believed the prosecution witnesses and convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. On appeal, the High Court affirmed the conviction and, as stated already, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from two years R.I. to one years R.I. under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sustaining, however, the sentence of one years R.I. under S. 161, IPC and also the sentence of fine.

6. The learned Counsel, appearing on behalf of the appellant, has strenuously urged that one complainant, P.W. 4 Gurcharan Singh, should not be believed at all. Our attention has been drawn to the evidence of P.W, 4 that except 22 kanals of land which he mortgaged with one Ram Sarup, he had sold all his land in village Khanal-Kalan. It is submitted that in view of the fact that no land was left for being mortgaged, there was no necessity for any copy of the Jamabandi and, as such, the story that he had asked the appellant for a copy of the Jamabandi and the latter demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 200/-, is false. It is also submitted by the learned Counsel that there is enmity between Gurcharan Singh and the appellant inasmuch as at the instance of the appellant the mutation entries in the names of the sons of the complainant had been reviewed.

7. It is true that P.W. 4 has stated in his cross-examination that he had sold all his land in village Khanal-Kalan. It is, however, not clear when he had sold his land. The incident ha