JUDGMENT

S.B. Sinha, J.—

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th October, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby a judgment acquitting the respondent from the charges under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’) passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot dated 25th September, 1990 was reversed.

2. The prosecution case in brief as under is :-

Jasdev Pal Singh (PW-5), complainant, applied for grant an electric connection for a 5 H.P. Motor pump. On receipt of demand notice in July, 1987, he deposited the necessary fees and the test report. The site was inspected by the respondent, who was Junior Engineer with Punjab State Electricity Board alongwith the S.D.O. They approved the installation and sent the case to the Executive Engineer, Bhatinda. The connection was sanctioned within two months. It was case of the prosecution that whenever complainant went to see the respondent in connection with the release of the electric connection, the latter kept on putting him off.

It was further case of prosecution that on 22nd December, 1988 the Complainant along with Sarwan Singh (PW-6) went to Kotkapura and met the respondent, who demanded a sum of Rs.500/- for release of the connection. On request of the Complainant, respondent agreed to receive Rs.200/-. The Complainant and Sarwan Singh told the respondent that they would again come at 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. It was further case of the prosecution that the Complainant and Sarwan Singh visited the office of the Vigilance at Faridkot and narrated the whole incident to the concerned officer, whereafter his statement was recorded. On the basis of an endorsement made by Inspector Gurbachan Singh, a First Information Report No.119 dated 22nd December, 1988 under Section 13(2) of the Act was recorded. It was further case of the prosecution that the complainant produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each. The number of the notes were noted down and phenolphthalein powder was applied thereto and nothing remained in the pocket of the complainant. The complainant was asked to hand over the amount to the respondent on his demand. Sarwan Singh (PW-6) was directed to watch and listen to the conversation between the respondent and the Complainant and if and when the money is passed to the respondent, he should give a signal to the raiding party. One Inderjit Singh, Assistant in the Treasury Office also joined the raiding party. As per the prosecution, notes were handed over to the accused on demand, at the tea shop to which the parties had proceeded to take tea having been offered by the respondent. The raiding party was then signaled whereupon the raid was conducted and recovery of a sum of Rs.200/- was made

Respondent was charged for commission of an offence under Section 13(1) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

3. Before the learned Special Judge besides the Complainant Jasdev Pal Singh (PW-5), his friend Sarwan Singh (PW-6) was examined to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe and the recovery thereof. They supported the prosecution case. Hardial Singh (PW-7), is also a witness to the recovery of the currency notes.

4. We may, however, notice that the prosecution examined one Gurcharan Singh (PW-9), UD.C. working in the Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot. He produced the records in regard to the order of grant of Service Connection to the Complainant Jasdev Pal Singh. According to him, the electrical connection was given to him on 30th March, 1989. The prosecution sought to bring on record that whereas one Suckchain Singh, who was at serial number 38 in the seniority list had been granted connection on 25th January, 1989, the complainant Jasdev Pal Singh, who was at serial number 36, was given connection on 30th March, 1989. PW 9, however, in his cross-examination accepted that whereas Jasdev Pal Singh’s seniority was in