The judgment establishes that the demand, acceptance, and recovery of illegal gratification can be proved by circumstantial evidence, and the presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 arises once the premise of payment or acceptance of gratification is established.

Darshan Singh, J.

The present appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction dated 17.10.2006 passed by the Court of Special Judge, Patiala vide which appellant-Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamaljit Singh was held guilty and convicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and the order of sentence of even date vide which he was sentenced as under:-

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

2. The brief facts giving rise to the prosecution case are that the electric meter of complainant Kuldip Singh, resident of village Dhakoli, District Patiala was damaged in the dust storm on 12.5.1994. He moved an application to the office of Sub Divisional Officer, Punjab State Electricity Board, Zirakpur on 13.5.1994 for restoration of the electricity supply. On 16.5.1994, appellant Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamaljit Singh, Junior Engineer and his co-accused Sher Singh, Assistant Line Man visited his house at village Dhakoli. They checked the meter and told him that new meter had to be installed but they did not restore the electric connection of the complainant on that day. The complainant went to the office of the Punjab State Electricity Board, Zirakpur (hereinafter referred to as "the Board") and met appellant Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamaljit Singh and his co-accused Sher Singh, who were sitting in the same room. The complainant requested them to restore the electricity of his house. Both the accused asked him if he wanted early restoration of electric supply to his house, then he would have to pay Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification to them and in case he did not do so, he had to pay a penalty of Rs. 8,000/-. The complainant requested them that he was a poor person and expressed his inability to pay the huge amount but the accused were adamant and stated that the matter would not be settled for less than Rs. 2,000/-. The complainant stated that he would arrange the money within two/three days. Then appellant Kamaljit Kumar alias Kamaljit Singh, Junior Engineer stated that the complainant should pay this amount of Rs. 2,000/- as illegal gratification on 19.5.1994 to him or Sher Singh, Assistant Line Man. Thereafter, the complainant along with P.W.1 Balbir Singh, the shadow witness, approached the Vigilance Department, Punjab at Chandigarh on 19.5.1994 and reported the entire matter to Inspector Harjap Singh vide his statement Ex. PM. The complainant handed over 20 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100/- each to Inspector Harjap Singh, who applied phenolphthalein powder thereon and noted down their numbers in the entrustment memo and handed it over to the complainant with the direction to give it to the accused on their demand. Inspector Durga Dass and Balbir Singh were also associated in the proceedings. Inspector Harjap Singh, thereafter, demonstrated the reaction of the powder with the solution of Sodium Carbonate. Balbir Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness. He was instructed that he should accompany the complainant to the office of the accused and should hear their conversation and witness the transaction. He was further instructed that when Kamaljit Kumar or Sher Singh would accept the bribe money, he should give signal to the raiding party. Thereafter, they started for the trap. P.W.6 Pa