TARA SINGH Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a criminal appeal and has been directed against the judgment and order dated 28.4.1987 passed by Special Judge, Ludhiana, who convicted the appellant under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 I.P.C. and sentenced him as follows :- 1) To undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 250/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 6 months under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) ) To undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/-; in default of payment of fine to undergo further RI for a period of 3 months under Section 161 I.P.C. 2. The brief facts of the case can be noticed in the following manner :- In July, 1985 appellant Tara Singh was working as Patwari in village Ramgarh Sivian and complainant Iqbal Singh PW3 owned land in that village. The complainant required a copy of the jamabandi of his land for getting a limit fixed from the bank for getting fertilizer loan. Two or three days prior to 5.7.1985 the complainant approached the appellant in the Patwarkhana of village Ramgarh Sivian for getting copy of jamabandi of his land. The appellant told him that the copy could not be issued till the complainant paid the bribe money to him and demanded Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification. Ultimately, the deal was struck at Rs. 50/- and the appellant agreed to supply the copy of the jamabandi on 5.7.1985 on receipt of Rs. 50/- as bribe money.

(3.) THE nip Ex.P5 was sent to the office of Forensic Science Laboratory, Chandigarh from where the report Ex.PL has been received to the effect that "sodium ions, carbonate ions and phenolphthalein are present in the contents of the quarter bottle under reference". After the completion of the investigation of the case and after obtaining the necessary sanction for the prosecution, the appellant was challaned in the Court of Special Judge, Ludhiana, who supplied the copies of the documents to the appellant and framed charges against him under Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under Section 161 I.P.C. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.