VINOD K.SHARMA,J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant in case FIR No. 13 dated 29.08.1990 registered under sections 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the Act) at Police Station State Vigilance Bureau, Karnal, by the learned Special Judge, Karnal.
(2.) THE appellant was tried and sentenced to undergo R.I. for three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo further R.I. for a period of 6 months under section 7 read with section 13 of the Act. The case of the prosecution is that a piece of land was his transferred on a decree in the name of Sewa Singh complainant and brother Dalip Singh by their father. Sews Singh complainant approached the accused appellant who is Patwari for getting mutation entered and attested in his name. It is the case of the prosecution that accused demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- by way of illegal gratification. The complainant Sewa Singh approached DSP Vigilance namely Ravi Azad and complained to him about the demand for illegal gratification. DSP obtained three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from the complainant. He applied phenolphthalein powder and entered number of notes in the memo and handed over the currency notes to the complainant. DSP then conducted a raid and Rakam Singh was asked to follow the complainant and to give signal to the police party as soon as money is received by the accused. Rakam Singh is said to have given signal whereupon the police party reached Patwarkhana, and secured the accused and recovered the currency notes of Rs. 300/- from the shoe of the accused. He also got the hands and foot of the accused washed with the solution of soda bicarbonate. The colour of the water turned pinkish. Said water was put into three different nips which were sealed at the spot. The water was sent to FSL, Haryana for examination and report. FSL report showed that the water carried phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate. After getting sanction from the Deputy Commissioner the appellant-accused was challaned and charged under sections 7 and 13 of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) THE prosecution to prove its case examined complainant Sewa Singh as PW 5 and Rakam Singh PW 6 who supported the prosecution story. Sewa Singh in his statement stated that the accused had demanded a sum of Rs. 300/- from him and he complained to DSP in this connection. A written complaint was also filed. He proved the factum of notes having been given to the DSP on which phenolphthalein powder was applied and thereafter notes were handed over to him for handing over to accused appellant.;