The court emphasized the importance of deterrent punishment for public servants engaging in corrupt practices, highlighting the impact of corruption on society.

Sham Sunder, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction, and the order of sentence dated 10.07.1996, rendered by the Special Judge, Rup Nagar, vide which he convicted Narinder Kumar son of Om Parkash, accused, (now appellant), as under:-

Names of the accused (now appellant)

The offence for which conviction was recorded.

Sentence awarded

Narinder Kumar

U/S.7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Rigorous imprisonment for four years. Fine of Rs. 5000/-. In default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months.

2. The facts, in brief, are that, on 21.08.1991, Narinder Kumar son of Gurcharan Dass, resident of Sohana, Tehsil Kharar, District Rupnagar, came to the office of the Vigilance Flying Squad- I, Punjab, Chandigarh and made his statement Ex.PD, which was recorded by Harjap Singh, Inspector. It was stated, in this statement, by Narinder Kumar, that he was an agriculturist by profession. About two months prior to 21.08.1991, he purchased 8 kanals of land from Kabal Singh son of Dasondi Singh, resident of Sohana, for a consideration of Rs. 80,000/-. The sale deed was registered on 12.06.1991 in tehsil office at Kharar. He was to get the mutation sanctioned, in respect of that sale. He contacted Narinder Kumar, Patwari, of his village and requested him to enter the mutation, on the basis of the sale deed, referred to above. Narinder Kumar, Patwari, accused, (now appellant) had been putting him off, on one pretext or the other. It was further stated by him, in his statement that on 21.08.1991, he went, in the morning, to the Patwar Khana at Sohana, alongwith copy of the sale deed. He requested Narinder Kumar, accused to enter the mutation. Narinder Kumar, Patwari, told him that the mutation could not sanction in that manner. He (Narinder Kumar), further told him that he would charge a sum of Rs. 400/- as gratification, other than legal remuneration, for entering the mutation, on the basis of sale deed, referred to above. When Narinder Kumar, complainant, requested the accused that he was a poor person and, as such, was unable to pay the same, he ( Narinder Kumar) agreed to receive a sum of Rs. 200/- as gratification, other than legal remuneration for the aforesaid purpose. Since the complainant did not want to pay the gratification, other than legal remuneration for his work, to the accused, he made a false promise, that the amount was not readily available with him. Narinder Kumar, accused, told the complainant that he should hand over the sale deed to him and he could bring Rs. 200/-. He further told him, that he would then enter the mutation. By making a false promise, aforesaid, to the accused, he(com- plainant) came back. He produced two currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, before Harjap Singh, Inspector and requested him to take action, in accordance with law. against the accused. The statement was read over and explained to the complainant, who after admitting the same to be correct, signed it. The numbers of currency notes , which were handed over to Harjap Singh, Inspector, were noted down in memo Ex.PE. Phe- nolphthalein powder was applied to the currency notes. Thereafter, Harjap Singh, Inspector, satisfied that nothing was left with the complainant. The currency notes, to which the Phenolphthal- ein powder was applied, were handed over to Narinder Kumar, complainant. He was instructed to go to Narinder Kumar, accused and on his demand, pay the aforesaid tainted currency notes as gratification, other than legal remuneration. A glass containing water, was fetched, in which sodium carbonate was mixed, as a result whereof, the colour thereof did not change. When a pinch of powder i.e. Phinol Pathalene was put in the mixture, the water thereof turned into pinkish. The mixture after demonstration was destroyed. Memo Ex.PF regarding the demonstration was prepared, which was attested by the witnesses. Endorsement Ex.PM on the statement of the complainant,