- (1.)State has filed this appeal to challenge the order passed by Special Judge, Bathinda, who has acquitted respondent-Gurdev Singh serving as Sub Inspector with the Punjab police. The respondent was prosecuted for an offence under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short the 'Act'). The allegations against the respondent were that on 18.06.1991 while being posted as Sub Inspector, Incharge, Police Post, Railway Colony, Bathinda, he had abused his position and demanded sum of Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from Harnek Singh-complainant. This money was accepted as a motive or reward for filing the application against the sons of Harnek Singh and, thus, he was charged and prosecuted for an offence under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Harnek Singh-complainant had gone to Inspector-Balwinder Singh of Vigilance Bureau, Bathinda on 18.06.1991 with this complaint. The Inspector-Balwinder Singh had then reduced the same in writing wherein the complainant alleged that respondent-Gurdev Singh had called him 5-6 days ago after having taken his two sons in custody at police post. The complainant, accordingly, had gone to the police post and tried to reason out with the respondent that his sons were not involved in any terrorists activity. As per the complainant, he was only dealing in sale of Chaff. Both the sons of the complainant was, thus, got released. 2-3 days, thereafter, respondent-Gurdev Singh had gone to the residence of son of the petitioner and asked him to make some payment for the favour that he had shown to the complainant. The complainant, on the other hand, told him that he had earlier also satisfied him and so why he was again troubling his sons. The accused had then demanded Rs. 1,000/- as bribe. The bargain was struck to Rs. 500/-. The respondent agreed to drop the proceedings if this money was paid to him. He is alleged to have also threatened the complainant to involve his son, if he failed to pay the money as demanded. The complainant, accordingly, had approached the Vigilance Inspector as he was not keen to pay this bribe. Thereafter, his statement was recorded. The complainant provided the currency notes of Rs. 100/- each. These were initialled by the Inspector and also applied phenol pathelein powder over these notes and handed over to the complainant. The complainant was, accordingly, directed to give notes for payment on demand. He was also told not to shake hands with the respondent before or after he had accepted the bribe. On this basis, the trap was laid. One Makhan Singh was detailed as a shadow witness to watch the proceedings. Lakhwinder Singh, DSP, Sub Division Bathinda was associated with the raiding party. It is, in this manner, the respondent was caught while accepting the bribe. After accepting the money, the complainant had put the same into his pocket. When he was intercepted, the necessary formalities for making the hands to dip in a glass of water in which sodium carbonate was put, the colour of the solution turned pinkish when the respondent put hand therein.
(2.)Similarly, the portion of the pocket of his trouser was dipped in the solution, which again turned pink and on this basis, the further proceedings were initiated against him finally leading to his trial.
(3.)The prosecution case rested on the statement of Harnek Singh, Makhan Singh PW2, who was a shadow witness and Inspector Balwinder Singh Ramana PW6, who by the time had become DSP. The respondent did not lead any evidence in his defence. He, however, denied all the incriminating circumstances and the evidence, which were led against him and with which he was confronted. The Special Judge, Bathinda, on the basis of evidence has acquitted the respondent on technical ground.