A.B. CHAUDHARI, J.

1. Being aggrieved by judgment and order dated 20.11.2007 passed by the learned Special Judge, Tarn Taran, in S.C. (RBT) Case No.25 of 2007, by which the appellant-Kulwant Singh was convicted for the offence under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘PC Act’) and sentenced him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and to pay fine in the sum of Rs.2,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 months, the present appeal was filed by him in this Court.

FACTS

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case was that on 29.12.1999, complainant-Gurdial Singh along with Baljit Singh lodged the complaint in the office of Swinder Singh as DSP Vigilance Bureau, Amritsar that complainant-Gurdial Singh had joint land with his uncle measuring 48 Kanals 21 Marlas, in village Sarli. He met appellant-patwari on 28.12.1999 to get a copy of jamabandi. The appellant demanded bribe in the sum of Rs.500/- and on repeated request, brought it down to Rs.400/-. He asked the complainant to bring the bribe money on the next date, i.e. 29.12.1999. Complainant then appeared before the DSP and got his complaint recorded. He then handed over four currency notes of Rs.100/- denominations to the DSP who then followed the usual procedure for conducting raid and also got joined Baljit Singh as a shadow witness. Dr. Rajiv Arora from the office of Soil Conservation, Amritsar joined as independent official witness, but was not examined in the trial. After registration of the FIR, the raiding party went for raid at Patwarkhana of the accused in village Sarli. They parked their vehicle at some distance. Complainant-Gurdial Singh and shadow witness Baljit Singh were sent to the office of the accused. After sometimes, shadow witness-Baljit Singh gave a signal and thereafter, raid was conducted and appellant was caught red handed with the sum of Rs.400/- currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination. Thereafter, usual procedure was followed after taking personal search of the accused. After completion of investigation, challan was filed. Thereafter, the trial commenced. The prosecution examined PW1- Gurdial Singh-complainant, PW2-Umarjit Kaur Bill Clerk, PW3- Constable Gurkamal Singh, PW4-Baljit Singh shadow witness and other official witnesses. Upon closure of the evidence of the prosecution, the appellant examined defence witnesses, DW1-Niranjan Singh, DW2-Dalip Singh. They proved jamabandi for the year 1995- 1996 Exhibit D1, jamabandi for the year 2000-2001 Exhibit D2 and mutation Exhibit D3. Learned trial Court after examining the evidence of the prosecution witnesses as well as defence witnesses found the appellant guilty and recorded the conviction and sentence as stated above. Hence, this appeal.

ARGUMENTS

3. In support of the appeal, learned counsel for the appellant at the outset raised the point that the police officer who had taken the personal search of the accused was required to offer himself to the accused for his personal search. Thus, search by the police officer would become illegal and acquittal order was bound to follow. He relied on the decision in the case of Sushil Kumar versus The State of Punjab, (1974) C.L.R. Vol. II 193 followed in Para 16 in the case of State of Punjab versus Kushal Singh Pathania, 2004 (4) R.C.R. (Criminal) 498. Learned counsel for the appellant then contended that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in that the complainant did not disclose the genesis of the prosecution case honestly and correctly leaving various suspicious circumstances against the prosecution case. The case of the complainant-Gurdial Singh-PW1 was that he owned land 48 Kanals 12 Marlas in village Sarli with his uncle for which he wanted the copy of jamabandi. But then he admitted in his cross-examination that he d