IN THE HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB & HARYANA AT CHANDIGARH Reserved on: February 14^th, 2025 Pronounced on: March 11^th, 2025 Neka Singh .....Appellant Versus State of Punjab .....Respondent CORAM: HON'BLE MRS. JUSTICE MANJARI NEHRU KAUL Argued by: Ms. Rupinder Kaur Thind, Advocate for the appellant.

Mr. Shiva Khurmi, Assistant Advocate General, Punjab.

MANJARI NEHRU KAUL, J.

Appellant is impugning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.10.2010 passed by learned Special Judge, Mansa, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced under Section 7 and 13(2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as ‘the P.C. Act’) as under:

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case may be noted as thus:

(i) The FIR in the present case was registered based on the statement of the complainant, Dhanna Singh, at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Bhatinda. The complainant alleged that his wife had executed a sale deed in favour of their daughter-in-law. Subsequently, the complainant submitted an application before the Tehsildar for sanctioning the mutation, which was allowed, directing the mutation to be entered. The complainant then handed over the said application to the concerned Kanungo, who further marked it to the Patwari (the appellant). Upon requesting the appellant to enter the mutation of ₹

the land in question, the appellant allegedly demanded 1,500/- as a ₹

bribe, though the deal was ultimately settled at 800/-.

(ii) The complainant, after discussing the matter with his brother, Gurudev Singh (who later acted as the shadow witness), approached the office of the Vigilance Bureau to have the appellant apprehended and met DSP Balbir Singh, the Investigating Officer (I.O.). Upon receiving the complaint, the I.O. summoned two independent witnesses-Kuldeep Singh, District Welfare Officer, and Sohan Singh, Senior Assistant, to join the raiding team. The complainant produced ₹

eight currency notes of 100 each, whose serial numbers were duly recorded by the I.O. The notes were then treated with phenolphthalein powder. Additionally, a personal search of the complainant was conducted to ensure he was not carrying any other currency. He was specifically instructed not to shake hands with the appellant before or after handing over the tainted money.

(iii) Gurudev Singh, the brother of the complainant, was assigned the role of shadow witness. A demonstration of the trap was conducted in the office, and after its conclusion, the solution used for the demonstration was disposed of, and the raiding team washed their hands. A memorandum was prepared documenting these proceedings, duly attested by the complainant and the witnesses. Thereafter, the raiding party proceeded to the office of the appellant. The complainant and the shadow witness entered the Patvarkhana, while the trap team remained concealed nearby. Upon receiving the pre-arranged signal from the shadow witness, the raiding team conducted the raid and apprehended the appellant on the spot.

(iv) A sodium carbonate solution was prepared in a glass, and to verify its effectiveness, two officials dipped their hands into it, but the color of the solution did not change, however, when the hands of the appellant were washed in the same solution, it turned light pink. The solution was then sealed and taken into possession. Similarly, the front pocket of the appellant's kurta was washed in the sodium carbonate solution, which also resulted in a color change. The appellant's kurta pocket, along with the solution, was sealed and taken into possession by the I.O. The tainted currency notes, totalling eight, were recovered from the front pocket of the appellant's kurta, and their serial numbers matched those recorded during the pre-trap proceedings. (v) During the course of the investigation, the I.O. took the relevant documents into possession and the sealed items were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination.

3. Findings of the learned trial Court:

Upon appreciating the evi