IMPORTANT POINT
When there was no witness to the demand of bribe except the complainant, mere recovery of amount from accused would not be sufficient for conviction.

JUDGMENT

Harbans Lal, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment/order of sentence dated 06.05.2004 passed by the court of learned Special Judge, Amritsar whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused Santokh Singh, to undergo rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, the Act) and in default of payment of fine .to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month and also sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/- under Section 13(2) of the Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month, with a further direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Shortly put, the facts of the prosecution case are that Bakshish Singh PW approached the accused who was posted as revenue Halqa patwari, for getting the certified copies of jamabandi. He was put off on one pretext or the other. On 21.07.2000 he again went to the accused and requested him for supply of such documents. The accused demanded an amount of Rs.5000/- as illegal gratification for giving these documents. Ultimately, this amount was reduced to Rs. 2,500/-. On 25.07 .2000 he alongwith Mangal Singh went to Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar. He produced two currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/- each before Ranvir Singh D.S.P. After observing the usual formalities, the raiding party was constituted. Bakashish Singh alongwith Mangal Singh went inside the office of the accused. On receipt of appointed signal, the members of the raiding party went inside. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right side, drawer of table of the accused. The formalities were observed.

3. The accused was arrested. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was laid in the court for trial of the accused. The accused was charged under Section 7 and 13(2) of the Act to which he did not plead guilty and claimed trial. In order to bring home guilt against the accused, the prosecution examined Bakshish Singh complainant PW1, Angrez Singh Constable PW2, Kuljit Singh PW3, Mangal Singh shadow witness PW4, DSP Ranvir Singh PW5, Joginder Singh Naib Sadar Kanungo PW6, Jarnail Singh MHC PW7, Malkiat Singh Field Kanungo PW8 and closed its evidence.

4. When examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing in the prosecution evidence against them and pleaded innocence as well as false implication. He has come up with the plea that on 24.07.2000 Bakshish Singh complainant had an altercation with him and had threatened him in the presence of Anokh Singh on account of issuance of jambandi. In his defence, he has examined Anokh Singh DW1, Kirpal Singh DW2 and Tarsem Singh DW3.

5. After hearing the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, the learned defence counsel and examining the evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the accused as noticed at the outset. Feeling aggrieved therewith, he has preferred this appeal.

6. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties, besides perusing the record with due care and circumspection.

7. On behalf of the appellant, it has been canvassed at the bar that a glance through the alleged sanction Ex. PM. accorded for prosecution of the appellant would reveal that it is undated and the column of the date has been left blank, which clearly reflects non-application of mind of the sanctioning authority. Sequelly, this sanction cannot be taken into consideration. As against this, the learned State counsel pressed into service that of course, this sanction does not bear the date, but this omission in itself is not enough to hold that the sanction is defective.

8. I have well considered the rival contentions.

9. Admittedly, Ex. PM. does not bear the date. Joginder Singh PW6 has been examined to prove it. He has merely stated that “I am conversant with the signatures