A.S.BAINS, J. - (1.) SOHAN Lal appellant was convicted for the offences under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced of undergo one year' rigorous imprisonment under each count and a fine of Rs. 100/- under the first count, in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one month, by the learned Special Judge, Patiala, vide his order dated May 9 and 10, 1980. Hence, this appeal against his conviction and sentence.
(2.) THE appeal first came up for hearing before C.S. Tiwana, J. who maintained the conviction vide his order dated July 30, 1982. The Supreme Court vide order dated December 2, 1982, directed to re-hear appeal after affording the parties an opportunity. This is how the appeal has come up before me. The prosecution case as set up at the trial was that P.W. 3 Pohu Lal's bullock was injured and the appellant used to come to his house for dressing the appellant used to charge Rs. 15/- for each visit by saying that he was officially entitled to do so. He did not turn up subsequently and the wound became septic. Pohu Lal PW 3 contacted the appellant to treat the bullock but the appellant demanded Rs. 15/- for doing the needful. Since Pohu Lal did not have any money at that time, the appellant said that he would visit his house on the next day at 11.00 a.m. and would then dress the wound on obtaining a sum of Rs. 15/-. Since Pohu Lal PW did not want to pay that amount by way of bribe, he contacted Inspector Santokh Singh (P.W. 8), Incharge of the Vigilance Bureau, Ropar, who recorded the statement of Pohu Lal and organised a raid party. Two currency notes of the total value of Rs. 15/- to which phenolphthalein powder was applied were handed over to Pohu Lal for being paid as bribe on demand to the appellant. Rolu Ram (P.W. 4) was to act as shadow witness. The party then went near Pohu Lal's house at about 10.00 a.m. and the amoutn was paid on demand by Pohu Lal to the appellant which was subsequently recovered from him.
(3.) AT the trial the appellant denied the prosecution version. His version is as under :- "I am innocent. I administered vaccine for foot and mouth disease on 13.1.1979 on credit to the two bullocks of Pohu Lal, two buffaloes, one buffalo-hiefer of Pohu Lal, as per Government instructions Exhibit DE. As Pohu Lal had no money with him and the vaccine was to be finished within two hours. If not used it was likely to spoil and I gave this vaccine on credit on my persona level to be recovered later on but Pohu Lal did no pay this money. I demanded the price of this vaccine in the presence of in-laws of Pohu Lal's daughter and on this Pohu Lal felt annoyed and got this case fabricated with the help of Sardari Lal, a man of Inspector Santokh Singh." He also produced Ram Rattan (D.W. 1) and Mast Ram (D.W. 2) in his defence.;