K.S.GAREWAL, J. - (1.) THIS appeal against acquittal has been filed by the State of Punjab against Dr. Paramjit Singh who was tried by the learned Special Judge, Ludhiana, who vide judgment dated October 11, 1988 acquitted the accused for offences under Section 5(1)(d) road with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short 'the Act') and offence under Section 161 I.P.C.
(2.) THE facts of the case the that Dr. Paramjit Singh was a vetermity doctor posted at Veterinary Hospital, Machhiwara. He was accused of having accepted Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification from Sushil Kumar (PW 1) for treating Sushil Kumar's buffalo. The respondent had been arrested on the basis of a trap successfully executed by Inspector Darshan Singh (PW 3) of the Vigilance Bureau, during which Sushil Kumar handed over the bribe to the respondent at the Veterinary Hospital in the present of Karnail Singh (PW 2). Thereafter, on receiving the pointed signal the investigating officer reached the spot and recovered the tainted money from the possession of the respondent and placed him under arrest. After completion of the investigation and obtaining a sanction Ex.PV, the respondent was sent up for trial. Charge was framed against the respondent under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act. The prosecution examined Sushil Kumar (PW 1), Karnail Singh (PW 2), Inspector Darshan Singh (PW 3), Gurcharan Singh (PW 4), MHC Sadhu Singh (PW 5), H.C. Swaran Singh (PW 6), C. Naib Singh (PW 7) and Jasbir Singh, Assistant, Punjab Civil Secretariat (PW 8) and closed the case. The respondent was examined without oath under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and he denied all the prosecution evidence which had been presented at the trial but admitted that he was working as a Veterinary doctor at Machhiwara and was incharge of the hospital during those days. Sushil Kumar had brought his sick buffalo to the hospital on March 17. On March 14 and 15, i.e., after the office hours the respondent had visited Sushil Kumar's house for treating the buffalo and also prescribed the medicine. In his defence the respondent gave a detailed statement.
(3.) THE learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the sanction order was invalid, therefore, the respondent was discharged.;