K.P.S.SANDHU, J. - (1.) MOHINDER Singh appellant has come up in appeal against his conviction recorded by the learned Special Judge, Amritsar, vide his order dated 26th November 1982. The learned Special Judge sentenced him to R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default RI for six months under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and to RI for one year under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) IN the month of November, 1980, the appellant was posted as a Line Superintendent at Gohalwarh Sub-Division and village Mughal Chak of Joginder Singh complainant PW fell within his jurisdiction. 'The father of the complainant and his uncle had joint cultivation. They had installed joint tubewell in the name of Mohinder Singh, a cousin of Joginder Singh complainant. After some time there was a split between the brothers and two electric motors were installed with five horse powers each, although the connection of both the tubewells was in the name of Mohinder Singh. On partition, one of the tubewells fell in the share of Joginder Singh complainant. On 5-11-1980, the appellant told Joginder Singh complainant that unless he pays a sum of Rs. 300/-, the tubewell would be disconnected since the connection stood in the name of Mohinder Singh. It was agreed that the complainant would bring Rs. 300/- in the office of the appellant on the next morning. Joginder Singh complainant instead approached the Vigilance Inspector at Amritsar on 6.11.1980 and made a statement Exhibit PC. On the basis of the same, a format first information report Exhibit PC/2 was registered. Three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each which mere Exhibits P-1 to P-3 were handed over to the Vigilance Inspector by the complainant. They wore initialled by the Vigilance Inspector and treated with phenolphthalein powder. The numbers of the currency notes were also noted down by the Vigilance Inspector. Jagtar Singh Sarpanch of a neighbouring village, who was also present there was directed to act as a shadow witness and go with the complainant to pass on the money to the appellant. both Joginder Singh complainant and Jagtar Singh PWs went to the office of the appellant followed by the raid party consisting of the Vigilance Inspector and sonic other persons. Currency notes Exhibits P. 1 to P-3 were handed over to the appellant who put the same in the pocket of his pant. A signal was given by Jagtar Singh PW to the police party. On seeing the police party, the appellant is alleged to have thrown the currency notes on the ground. After disclosing his identity, the Vigilance Inspector secured the appellant. A solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and the appellant was made to wash his hand in the same. The colour of the solution turned pink which was converted into a nip, Exhibit P-4 The currency notes Exhibits P-1 to P-3 were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector from the ground and their numbers tallied with the numbers already noted down by the Vigilance inspector. The pocket of the pant of the appellant was also dipped in another solution of sodium carbonate. The colour of the came also turned pink which was also converted into a nip Exhibit P-5. Pant Exhibit P-6 of the accused was also taken into possession. After necessary sanction the appellant was prosecuted. When examined, under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the prosecution allegations and came out with the following version : "Since Mohinder Singh s/o Tara Singh was a defaulter I was entrusted with his DCO on 21/10.1980. I went to his tubewell on the same day. Joginder Singh PW was present at the tubewell. I asked him to make the payment of the bill of the tubewell. He told me that he did not possess the money at that time. I then told him that I was going to make the disconnection unless he makes the payment. He brought the money immediately. He handed over the amount to me and asked for the receipt in his name. I told him that since the tubewell was in the name of Mohinder Singh, I could not Issue the receipt in his name. On this account, we had alteration I then also charged a fine of Rs. 10/- from him along with the payment of his bill. I deposited the amount recovered from Joginder Singh PW on 22.10.1980. I also informed the SDO about the altercation. I returned the DCO order. with my endorsement the same day. On 6-11-1980, I was proceeding to the revenue section. of my office. Joginder Singh caught me from my hand and asked me to bear him for a minute. He had currency notes in his hand and tried to put them in my pocket. I raised alarm and with push of my hand threw currency notes on the ground. Immediately, the SDO and other officials came there. Two constables in plain clothes were already standing near my office. After about 25 mts Inspector Behari Lal came there. The SDO and myself informed Behari Lal about my altercation with Joginder Singh. Inspector then asked Joginder Singh as to why he did not tell them about the DCO. I told the Inspector that I was being falsely implicated and as such I was not arrested". In defence, he examined Shri O.P. Bansal, Asstt. XEN, DW 1. He stated that he was S.D.O. at Gohalwarh on 6.11.1980 The currency notes Exhibits P-1 to P-3 were lying on the ground which were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector. He farther stated that the appellant was declaring that he was being falsely implicated in the case and that he had issued Exhibit PB, for non-payment of the bill by the complainant and that the money recovered by the appellant and also deposited by him. The appellant further informed him that the complainant was not willing to pay the money and it was with great difficulty and after some quarrel that he recovered the money from the complainant.
(3.) THE prosecution in order to substantiate its case, examined the following witnesses. Shri Ram Parkash, Superintendent PW 1 proved the sanction Exhibit PA for the prosecution of the appellant. Swaran Singh PW 2. Assistant Revenue Accountant, Sub-Division Gohalwarh. proved Exhibit PB. disconnection order, for non-payment of the bill, issued by the S.D.O. and payment for the same was deposited by the appellant. According to this witness. Kailash Chander PW 3 only proved the appointment of the appellant at that place at that particular point of time. Joginder Singh PW 4 is the complainant. Jagtar Singh PW 5 shadow witness did not support the prosecution version. He was declared hostile and was subjected to cross-examination by the Public Prosecutor. Tarlok Singh PW 6, Clerk of the Office of the Deputy Commissioner, Amritsar, was also a member of the raid party. He went with the police and in his presence the currency notes Exhibits P-1 to P-3 were lifted by the Vigilance Inspector from the ground. He also deposed that the appellant was declaring that he was being falsely involved in the case. Bihari Lal PW 7 Vigilance Inspector organised the raid and investigated the case.;