BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment of conviction dated 20.10.2004 and order of sentence dated 21.10.2004 passed by Special Judge, Moga, vide which accused -appellant Surinder Sharma was held guilty in case FIR No.4 dated 22.1.2001 registered at Police Station, Vigilance Bureau, Ferozepur for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence In default Under Section 7 of the Act. RI for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/ - RI for six months Under Section 13(2) of the Act RI for four years and fine of Rs.5,000/ - RI for six months However, both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution case, put in brief, is as under: M/s Naresh Trading Company was running a rice mill in the name & style of National Rice Mills, Mudki Road, Baghapurana. It was on lease. Mahesh Kumar was attorney of the said firm for conducting day to day business of the mill. On 12.1.2001 a bill of electric consumption of the mill was received from the Punjab State Electricity Board (hereinafter mentioned as PSEB). It was for a sum of Rs.45,938/ -. The bill was for an exaggerated amount as 2946 units had been shown over and above actual consumption of the electricity. The bill thus, was defective. For correction of the bill, attorney Mahesh Kumar had moved an application on 17.1.2001 to the Additional Executive Engineer, Operation Division, HSEB, Baghapurana, who in turn had marked such application to SDO City/R.A. City for correction of the bill. It is further the case of the prosecution that on 18.1.2001, said Mahesh Kumar had approached Revenue Accountant Surinder Sharma (now appellant -accused) in his office i.e. City Sub -Division, PSEB, Baghapurana for correction of the bill and had produced the application with the defective bill. He kept those documents with him but refused to do the needful without payment of Rs.2,000/ - as bribe. Later, he reduced the demanded bribe amount to Rs.1,000/ -. Attorney Mahesh Kumar was not willing to pay the bribe but pretending him to bring the money, he had fixed the time for 22.1.2001 to pay the bribe money in his office for correction of the bill to be made by the accused. Thus, by making false promise to the accused to pay bribe, he came back to his house. On 22.1.2001, Mahesh Kumar met Baljit Singh, his earlier acauaintance at Baghapurana Chowk. The complainant talked to him. They made a plan to report the matter to Vigilance Department. They came to Vigilance Bureau, Moga. A trap was planned. The complainant presented two currency notes of Rs.500/ - each to the DSP (Vigilance). Applying phenolphthalein powder (hereinafter mentioned as P. Powder) thereon, the said currency notes were handed over to the complainant. These were to be given to the accused on demand as bribe. Baljit Singh was put as a shadow witness. He was to accompany the complainant and was to pass on a preplanned signal to the raiding party after handing over of the tainted currency notes by the complainant to the accused was complete. On their way, the investigating officer had also joined Dr. Gurpreet Singh, Agriculture Development Officer, Moga and Nachhattar Singh, Gram Sewak, office of BDPO, Moga to witness the entire episode. It is further the case of the prosecution that thereafter, the raiding party, as planned, left for laying a trap on the accused in his office. Then raid was conducted. The accused was present in his office. He was apprehended red handed. Investigating officer arranged a glass of water wherein sodium carbonate powder was added. Thereafter, hands of the accused one by one were got dipped in that solution which resulted in change of colour of the solution to pinkish. It was then transferred in a separate nip which was sealed by the investigating officer with the seal 'RS'. Said nip was taken into possession by the police. The currency notes were recovered from the jacket of the accused. Details of the currency notes recovered, tallied with the details of the currency notes in the pre -trap memo. Again solution of sodium carbonate was prepared in a glass tumbler. Accused was made to put off his jacket. He did likewise. Then right pocket of the jacket was made inside out and it was dipped in such solution; it turned pinkish. Separate parcel of jacket of the accused was prepared and then it was taken in possession by the police. Pocket of jacket wash was transferred in a separate nip which was sealed and was taken in possession by the police. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Investigations were completed. Solution contained in both the nips was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. On completion of investigations, report under Section 173 Cr.PC was finalised. On being charge -sheeted for commission of the offences under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act vide order dated 7.6.2001 passed by the trial court, the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) THE prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses. To sustain the charge against the accused, the prosecution had placed heavy reliance on deposition of Mahesh Kumar complainant (PW5), shadowwitness Baljit Singh (PW10) and independent witness Dr. Gurpreet Singh (PW3). The investigating officer DSP Ramandeep Singh (PW11) was also examined to strengthen the prosecution case. However, PW Nachhattar Singh was given up by the prosecution.;