MEHTAB S.GILL, J. - (1.) Learned counsel for the State has argued that respondent as J.E. in the Electricity Department, took illegal gratification of Rs.500/- for the installation of a meter. Prosecution witnesses came into the witness box and have proved the case of the prosecution. Impugned judgment of the trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises.
(2.) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment.
(3.) Prosecution case is that respondent had demanded Rs.500/- as illegal gratification, for installation of a meter at the shop of the complainant. Trial Court has rightly held that it is strange that though the raid was conducted at the shop of the complainant and the respondent was allegedly arrested at the shop of the complainant, but there was no meter with him when he was apprehended. Prosecution witness Vicky has stated, that on 22.4.1999 respondent was working about 100 yards away from the shop of the complainant. He was called by the complainant at his shop where the Vigilance officials were present. It is clear from the testimony of Vicky that the respondent did not go to the shop of the complainant but was called by Vicky, where the Vigilance officials were already present.;