The court upheld the conviction based on the established demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, despite the failure to recover certain evidence and the accused's plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

Muttaci Jeyapaul, J.:-

1. Accused Amrik Singh has challenged the conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court under Section 7 and Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

2. It is the case of the prosecution that on 16.2.1994, PW2 Surjit Singh, the complainant in this case, approached the accused and demanded a copy of the jamabandi. The accused demanded a sum of `2000/- as an illegal gratification for issuance of a copy of jambandi. The deal was struck at ` 1500/-. PW2 came back with an excuse to pay the same on 17.2.1994. Thereafter, PW2 met PW6 Inspector Daljit Singh and narrated the whole incident and presented a sum of ` 1500/-. Phenolphthalein powder test was demonstrated and thereafter a trap was laid. PW2 handed over a sum of ` 1500/- to the accused-appellant. The tainted money to the tune of ` 1500/- was recovered from the purse kept in the pocket of the accused by PW6 Inspector Daljit Singh, who reached the office of the accused immediately on receipt of the signal from the complainant. The accused was thereafter arrested by PW6.

3. PW2 Surjit Singh has spoken about the demand of ` 2000/- made by the accused for issuance of copy of jamabandi demanded by PW2, the deal struck at ` 1500/-, the complaint lodged with PW6 Daljit Singh, the demonstration of Phenolphthalein powder test, handing over of ` 1500/- to the accused and the recovery of the same from his person.

4. PW3 Dharam Singh who was employed as a shadow witness retracted from his earlier version. Therefore, he was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. PW4 Surinder Singh, Junior Engineer, was an official witness who spoke about the recovery of tainted notes from the purse kept in the pocket of the accused. PW5 Narinder Pal Singh was a witness to the entire proceedings. PW6 Inspector Daljit Singh who registered a case based on the complaint given by PW2, laid the trap and conducted the investigation. PW7 Smt. Gurpinder Kaur, Clerk attached to the D.C. Office, Fatehgarh Sahib spoke about the sanction order Ex. P7/A.

5. The accused set up a plea under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was innocent and a false case was foisted upon him.

6. The trial Court having relied upon the evidence of PW2 in the background of the evidence of PW4 and PW6 returned a verdict of conviction as stated supra.

7. PW2 Surjit Singh has categorically deposed that he sought for a copy of jamabandi in order to sell his property in dispute, but the accused demanded a sum of ` 2000/- as an illegal gratification, however, the deal was struck at ` 1500/-. In the guise of making payment by the next day, PW2 came out of the office of the accused and reported the matter to PW6 Inspector Daljit Singh. The next day, as instructed by PW6 Inspector Daljit Singh, he proceeded alongwith PW3. On 17.2.1994, Surjit Singh (PW2) handed over the tainted money which was treated with Phenolphthalein powder to the accused. Thereafter, a signal was given by Dharam Singh, PW3 to PW6 who descended on the office of the accused alongwith PW4 Surinder Singh and PW5 SI Narinder Pal Singh and recovered the tainted amount from the possession of the accused.

8. Of course, PW3 Dharam Singh who was a shadow witness in this case completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. PW4 Surinder Singh who was an official witness spoke about the recovery of tainted money from the purse kept in the pocket of the accused. PW5 who also joined the raiding party, too supported the version of PW4.

9. The above testimony of PW2, PW4 to PW6 would go to establish that the accused having demanded a sum of ` 1500/- accepted the tainted sum of ` 1500/- treated with Phenolphthalein Powder and the same was recovered from the purse kept in the pocket of the accused.

10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would vehemently submit that no copy of the jamabandi was recovered at the office of the accused. It may be a case where the accused had planned to prepare the copy of jamabandi after the amount demande

Click Here to Read the rest of this document