The central legal point established in the judgment is that for invoking presumption under the Prevention of Corruption Act, the acceptance of the bribe must be proved, and there must be a clear demand for the bribe. Additionally, the court emphasized the importance of corroborating evidence and the need for consistency in witness testimonies.

JUDGMENT

Avneesh Jhingan, J. (Oral) - Aggrieved of conviction under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, 'the Act') in FIR No. 59 dated 29.7.1998, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepore Range, Ferozepore, Gurcharan Singh (appellant) is in appeal.

2. The facts as per the case of the prosecution are that Nazar Singh made a complaint. He narrated that he himself and his brother were the beneficiaries of Will of his uncle Tara Singh. It was alleged that he had met the appellant who was posted as Halqa Patwari. He handed over the Will, death certificate and order of the court to the appellant for entering the mutation and for redemption of the mortgaged land. The appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 5500/-, the deal was struck at Rs. 4500/- and Rs. 2500/- were paid. After twenty five days, the complainant went to the appellant, he was told that mutation had been sanctioned but redemption of the land was yet to be done and balance amount was demanded. The complainant along with Mohinder Singh on 29.7.1998 made a complaint to the Vigilance Bureau and a trap was laid. Twenty currency notes of denomination of Rs.100/- each were laced with Phenolphthalein Powder. Mohinder Singh and Gurjit Singh Clerk of DFSC office were the shadow witness and official witness respectively. On reaching the office, the complainant and the shadow witness after giving instructions were sent inside. The appellant told that the work would be done only when the balance amount is paid and thereafter, the laced currency was handed over. The appellant put the notes in handkerchief and then kept it in the right pocket of his shirt. On signal of the shadow witness, the members of the raiding party reached the spot. On seeing the raiding party, the appellant threw the handkerchief containing the currency. On washing the hands of the appellant and the handkerchief with Sodium Carbonate solution, the colour turned pink.

3. On receiving the sanction, charge under Section 13(2) of the Act was framed.

4. The prosecution to prove its case examined ten witnesses.

5. In statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the allegations and pleaded innocence. He stated that the complainant in greed of getting reward of Rs. 25,000/- falsely implicated him. He further stated that the mutation had already been sanctioned by Tehsildar on 20.7.1998, there was no occasion for him to demand the amount. He also stated that the complainant forcibly tried to put the currency notes in his pocket and during the scuffle the currency notes fell on the ground.

6. The appellant examined one witness in defence.

7. The trial court considering that:

(i) though the official witness was declared hostile, the mutation had already been sanctioned but redemption of mortgaged land was not done;

(ii) on the basis of recovery of the tainted notes from the appellant, invoking presumption under Section 20 of the Act;

(iii) the appellant had not given any explanation with regard to possession of the laced currency; and

(iv) disbelieving the testimony of DW1-Sukhdev Singh on the ground that the villager just out of sympathy deposed in favour of the accused convicted the appellant under Section 13(2) of the Act vide judgment dated 27.7.2005. Vide order of even date, the appellant was sentenced as under:

Section

Sentence

Sentence in default of payment of fine

Section 13(2) of the Act

Undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs. 5000/-

To further undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months

8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the mutation was sanctioned prior to the date of raid and there was no occasion for the appellant to demand illegal gratification. The contention is that it was not proved that redemption of the mortgaged land was sought by the complainant. It is further submitted that the shadow witness had not supported that a demand was made by the appellant.

9. Learned counsel for the State defends the impugned judgment. He submits tha