On receipt of demand numberice in July, 1987, he deposited the necessary fees and the test report.
He produced the records in regard to the order of grant of Service Connection to the Complainant Jasdev Pal Singh.
Indisputably again, in view of the categorical statement made by Gurcharan Singh, PW 9, the High Tension companynection companyld be granted in terms of the seniority list only and after installation of the transformer.
ii No reason has been assigned by the prosecution as to why the independent witness Inderjit Singh, who was a government employee, had been given up by the prosecution.
One Inderjit Singh, Assistant in the Treasury Office also joined the raiding party.
It was further case of the prosecution that the companyplainant produced two currency numberes of the denomination of Rs.100/ each.
We may, however, numberice that the prosecution examined one Gurcharan Singh PW 9 , UD.C. working in the Punjab State Electricity Board, Faridkot.
We may place on record that one Inderjit Singh was an independent witness.
Accused was also there.
Some days prior to 22.12.1988 Jasdev Pal Singh came to me and inquired about his turn of companynection.
The Complainant admitted that the companynection was to be released only after the installation of transformer as per the sanction order.
According to him, the electrical companynection was given to him on 30th March, 1989.
He was a witness to the occurrence which is said to have taken place in the morning of 22nd November, 1988.
Respondent, who was a Junior Engineer, according to PW 9 had numberrole to play in the matter.
The site was inspected by the respondent, who was Junior Engineer with Punjab State Electricity Board alongwith the S.D.O. They approved the installation and sent the case to the Executive Engineer, Bhatinda.
They supported the prosecution case.
The companyplainant PW 5 was given a suggestion that before giving electric companynection a transformer was required to be installed which fact he admitted as also that the same having been installed on 30th March, 1989, he got the companynection on the same date.
On the alleged day of occurrence alongwith Ram Badhan Peon and some customers were present at the tea shop of Janakraj at Kotkapura where Jasdev Singh came and he tried to forcibly thrust the currency numberes in my pocket, which I tried to push with my hands and I raised alarm.
It was case of the prosecution that whenever companyplainant went to see the respondent in companynection with the release of the electric companynection, the latter kept on putting him off.
It was further case of prosecution that on 22nd December, 1988 the Complainant along with Sarwan Singh PW 6 went to Kotkapura and met the respondent, who demanded a sum of Rs.500/ for release of the companynection.
The raiding party was then signaled whereupon the raid was companyducted and recovery of a sum of Rs.200/ was made Respondent was charged for companymission of an offence under Section 13 1 read with Section 13 2 of the Act.
The police took the accused with them along with that man.
His village is situated at a distance of 1 kms.
As per the prosecution, numberes were handed over to the accused on demand, at the tea shop to which the parties had proceeded to take tea having been offered by the respondent.
iii The circumstantial evidence in regard to the alleged companymission of the offence by the respondent was number sufficient to establish the case of bribery in the light of the ingredients thereof.
This led to altercation between me and Jasdev Pal Singh.
He told me to teach me a lesson.
Although he sought to offer an explanation that both he and Sarwan Singh had gone to enquire about the price of Narma crop, he companyld number name the companymission agent through whom he sells the agricultural product.
Complainant, PW 5, in his evidence categorically stated that although he had visited the office of the Board at Kotkapura, which is at a distance of 34 35 kms,, and met the respondent number of times but the demand of money was made for the first time on 22nd December,1988.
He in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Civil Procedure inter alia stated I am innocent.
Sarwan Singh PW 6 was directed to watch and listen to the companyversation between the respondent and the Complainant and if and when the money is passed to the respondent, he should give a signal to the raiding party.
The companysumer can go either to the JE or the SDO to enquire about his turn of companynection.
One person came there who has his hairs cut but was having a turban on the head.
On request of the Complainant, respondent agreed to receive Rs.200/ .
Priority in the matter of grant of companynection only companyld be granted by the higher authorities in the Board.
The accused companyld number give companynection to any one before his turn.
It is also necessary to place on record that the respondent in support of his case examined two defence witnesses.
The companyplainant had applied for grant of the electric companynection for running a 5 H.P. motor.
On the basis of an endorsement made by Inspector Gurbachan Singh, a First Information Report No.119 dated 22nd December, 1988 under Section 13 2 of the Act was recorded.
In the meanwhile the police came there in plain cloths.
The numberes remained with Jasdev Pal Singh and the police came and they took the currency numberes from Jasdev Pal Singh.
Hardial Singh PW 7 , is also a witness to the recovery of the currency numberes.
On the purported ground that he had been won over, he was number examined, in support of material was brought on record.
Another defence witness who was examined on behalf of the respondent was Lakhbir Singh.
But numberpurpose can be served by the companysumer to go the JE or SDO before the turn of his companynection.
The police took me to the police station and they companycocted the case against me on 23.12.1998 and the documents were anti dated.
Indrajit Singh was an officer working in the Treasury Department.
He accepted that Sarwan Singh was number with him on earlier occasions Sarwan Singh is number a resident of the same village.
Indisputably the companyplainant PW 5 and Sarwan Singh PW 6 are friends.
The High Court in support of its judgment inter alia opined The prosecution is required to establish the demand of bribe by the accused acceptance whereof as also the amount in question from his possession and having regard to the fact that there exists serious discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses in regard to the events immediately prior to the payment of the amount of bribe, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved its case.
He insisted to give him companynection out of turn which I refused.
On what basis the said finding of fact was arrived at is number known.
The Complainant and Sarwan Singh told the respondent that they would again companye at 2.30 or 3.00 p.m. It was further case of the prosecution that the Complainant and Sarwan Singh visited the office of the Vigilance at Faridkot and narrated the whole incident to the companycerned officer, whereafter his statement was recorded.
All this happened in the presence of Lakhbir Singh.
He was forcibly putting the currency numberes in the pocket of pant of Sohan Singh accused and the accused was resisting, with his both hands.
Before the learned Special Judge besides the Complainant Jasdev Pal Singh PW 5 , his friend Sarwan Singh PW 6 was examined to prove the alleged demand and acceptance of the bribe and the recovery thereof.
from his village.
No plausible explanation had been furnished as to why PW 6 Sarwan Singh had accompanied the companyplainant in the afternoon.
The number of the numberes were numbered down and phenolphthalein powder was applied thereto and numberhing remained in the pocket of the companyplainant.
There were some customers.
The currency numberes were in the hands of that sikh gentleman.
According to the said witness when the respondent refused to grant electric companynection out of turn, he heard exchanges of hot words and a threat was made to the accused by a person that he would teach him a lesson.
Sarwan Singh and Hardial Singh ASI were number present.
The prosecution sought to bring on record that whereas one Suckchain Singh, who was at serial number 38 in the seniority list had been granted companynection on 25th January, 1989, the companyplainant Jasdev Pal Singh, who was at serial number 36, was given companynection on 30th March, 1989.
Only three suggestions were given to him i that he had number narrated the incident to any respectable person till that day ii that he had number made any companyplaint about the high handedness of the police and that he was falsely deposing.
The companyplainant was asked to hand over the amount to the respondent on his demand.
About 1 year and 9 months back, it was about 11 or 11.30 A.M. I was at my shop.
It was a High Tension companynection.
Strangely enough he was number cross examined on the companyrectness of the said statements.
The companynection was sanctioned within two months.
The numberes were taken by the police from that sikh gentleman.
I told him that probably it would be on 30.3.1989.
The prosecution case in brief as under is Jasdev Pal Singh PW 5 , companyplainant, applied for grant an electric companynection for a 5 H.P. Motor pump.
B. SINHA, J. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 29th October, 2003 passed by a learned Single Judge of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana whereby a judgment acquitting the respondent from the charges under Section 13 1 read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short the Act passed by the learned Special Judge, Faridkot dated 25th September, 1990 was reversed.
