IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: 31.01.2025 Pronounced on: 05.02.2025 Rajinder Singh .... Appellant Versus State of Punjab .... Respondent CORAM: HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Argued by: Mr. Manuj Nagrath, Advocate, for the appellant.

Mr. Amit Rana, Senior DAG, Punjab.

-----

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

The instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgement dated 22.03.2011, in FIR No.27, dated 16.11.2006, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda, vide which, the appellant was convicted for offence under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act)

and sentenced as follows by learned Special Judge, Bathinda:-

As per the case of the prosecution, on 15.11.2006 within the jurisdiction of Sangat, the appellant (hereinafter referred to as ‘accused’), while serving as Revenue Patwari, Halqa Sangat, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/- from Kartar Singh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the complainant’) in exchange for performing his official duty of incorporating an entry in the Rapat Roznamcha regarding the lease of 17 kanals 14 marlas of agricultural land at Rs.6,000/- per month to IB Company Limited for the purpose of setting up a petrol pump. As per the prosecution, this demand was made for personal pecuniary gain, beyond the legal remuneration due to the accused and was intended to favour the complainant in facilitating the entry. Subsequently on 16.11.2006, the accused allegedly negotiated and agreed to accept a reduced the amount to Rs.1,000/- as illegal gratification. Therefore, while acting in his official capacity as a public servant, the accused is said to have accepted a bribe of Rs.1,000/- from the complainant for incorporating the required entry regarding the lease of 17 kanals 14 marlas of land to the said Company. This act allegedly constituted an abuse of his official position for personal financial gain.

Upon receipt of complaint from the complainant, the Anti Corruption Bureau, set up a trap, following which, the accused was apprehended red-handed. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the right pocket of the trousers of the accused. After the completion of all the requisite procedures and the submission of the FSL report (Ex.PW6/H), a charge-sheet was filed against the accused before the learned trial Court.

Charges were framed under Sections 7, 13(2) of the PC Act, to which, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

During the trial, the prosecution examined eight witnesses including PW1-Suresh Kumar (shadow witness), PW2-Kartar Singh (complainant), PW6-DSP Sukhdev Singh Virk (Investigating Officer).

At the conclusion of the evidence of the prosecution, all the incriminating evidence against the accused was put to him under Section 313 of Cr.P.C.; the accused denied the allegations and claimed false implication.

In his defence, the accused examined Jagdev Singh, Clerk from the office of the District Collector, Bathinda.

SUBMISSIONS BY THE LEARNED COUNSEL FOR THE ACCUSED:

(i) that the trial Court while passing the impugned judgment failed to consider that the three essential ingredients i.e. demand, acceptance and recovery of tainted money, are not proved in the present case and hence, in the absence of any clear and specific evidence on record with respect to these three essential ingredients, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside;

(ii) That PW1-Suresh Kumar (shadow witness) did not support the case of the prosecution, as a result of which, he was declared hostile. He categorically stated that the complainant never handed over the tainted currency to the accused nor was any recovery of tainted money effected in his presence. Rather this shadow witness deposed that he remained seated in the car and never entered the Vigilance Office during the trap proceedings. All this considerably weakened the case of the prosecution;

(iii) That the testimony of the complainant