S. No.

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JAMMU & KASHMIR AND LADAKH

AT JAMMU

Reserved on: 16.10.2025 Pronounced on:30.12.2025 Uploaded on: 30 .12.2025 Whether the operative part or

Full judgment is pronounced? Full

Madan Lal,

Aged 56 years

Son of Bodh Raj

Resident of Gorkha Nagar, Jammu

…Appellant

Through: Mr. P. N. Raina, Sr. Advocate with

Mr. J. A. Hamal, Advocate.

v.

The State of J&K through the Incharge,

Vigilance Organization, Jammu. ....Respondent

Through: Mr. Raman Sharma, AAG with

Ms. Jagmeet Kour, Advocate Ms. Saliqa Sheikh, Advocate

CORAM:

HON‟BLE MR JUSTICE RAJESH SEKHRI, JUDGE

JUDGEMENT

INTRODUCTION

1. This appeal has been directed against judgment dated 24.05.2014, passed by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, [“the trial

court”], vide which, appellant came to be convicted and sentenced.

2. Before a closer look at the grounds urged in the memo of appeal, it

shall be apt to have an overview of the background facts.

PROSECUTION CASE

3. As the prosecution story would unfurl, on 22.02.2006 one Gurjeet Singh [“the complainant”] lodged a written complaint with Police Station, Vigilance Organization, Jammu stating inter alia that he intended to purchase 11 marlas of land from one Balwant Kour. Sale consideration of the land was paid to the vendor and an affidavit, in this respect, was already obtained by him. He approached the appellant, who happened to be Patwari Halqa, Chatha Satwari, to obtain „Fard‟ for the execution of sale deed. He was asked by the appellant to file application on behalf of Balwant Kour and get it marked in his name. He did it accordingly. However, the appellant demanded Rs.11,000/- gratification for the preparation of Fard and deal was settled for Rs.9,000/- to be paid in the office of the appellant.

4. On the receipt of this report, FIR No.5/2006 came to be registered. The investigating agency constituted a trap team. Two officials from PHE Department were associated with the trap process. After the pre-trap proceedings, held in the office of Vigilance Organization, the team proceeded to trap the appellant. The team went to the office of the appellant- Patwari and it is alleged that during the trap proceedings, the appellant received bribe of Rs.9,000/- from the complainant outside his office, while he was sitting in his Maruti Car. The appellant was caught red handed and gratification amount came to be recovered from his possession along with application of the complainant for obtaining Fard. The investigating agency conducted Sodium Carbonate test on the spot, which was found positive.

5. The investigation culminated in the presentation of charge sheet against the appellant for offences under Sections 5(1) read with 5(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006, of the then State of J&K, [“the P.C Act,” for short], and Section 161 of Ranbir Penal Code, 1989 [“RPC”], after requisite sanction from the competent authority for his prosecution as a public servant.

CHARGE

6. The appellant came to be charged by the trial court for the aforesaid offences on 10.08.2006 whereby he abjured the guilt and claimed trial, which prompted the trial court to ask for the prosecution evidence.

7. The prosecution examined:

PW Gurjeet Singh - the complainant PW Kewal Krishan Khajuria - Shadow Witness PW Anoop Verma - another independent witness, who at the relevant time was posted as A.E., City, Sub, Division Jammu PW Balwant Kour - the witness on whose behalf the complainant is stated to have made application to obtain Fard PW Mohd. Din - Naib Tehsildar PW-Manjeet Singh - an official of VOJ PW-Vijay Singh Samyal - SSP Vigilance who entrusted the investigation PW-Ashok Kumar - In-charge trap team and PW-Nazir Ahmad Ganie - the investigating officer.

8. Since learned trial court has recorded the narration of prosecution evidence in its length and breadth, in the impugned judgment, it is not required to be repeated again. However, a detailed reference to the testimonies of prosecution witnesses shall be made, as, when and where required.

9. On the cu