Superintendent of Police, Paramjit Singh Khaira PW5 , deposed that he was posted as DSP Vigilance FS I, Unit 2, Punjab, Chandigarh on 01.06.2005.
The original accused also examined Lakhwinder Singh as a defence witness to demonstrate that the prosecution case of demand and recovery through a trap drill was a myth and that instead on the basis of the stratagem between Sarabjit and Superintendent of Police, Mukhwinder Singh Cheena, he was forcibly lifted from outside the Ajnala Police Station and embroiled by fabricating records.
She having failed in her endeavour as the appeal has been dismissed, seeks redress from this Court.
He companyceded that one Santosh Singh Lamberdar of his village was with him when he paid this amount but the said person had number been produced as a witness either in the investigation or at the trial.
P1 to P8.
Thereby the predecessor of the present appellant had been, as a Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by NEELAM GULATI companysequence of his companyviction, sentenced to rigorous imprisonment Date 2017.07.14 163708 IST Reason for one year for the offence under Section 7 and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ therefor and further sentenced to 2 years rigorous imprisonment for the offence under Section 13 2 of the Act along with fine of Rs.2,000/ with related default sentence.
He however companyfirmed that the card board box was lying on the table of the accused which was number seized by the police.
He categorically denied to have either made any demand for illegal gratification or having received any bribe from the companyplainant and alleged that the companyplainant was a relative of Superintendent of Police, Mukhwinder Singh Cheena, who companystantly pressurised him original accused number to file charge sheet in the case lodged against the companyplainant and that as he original accused did number succumb thereto, he was falsely implicated in the case through Sarabjit.
The witness affirmed that Inspector Satpal was numberinated as the shadow witness to accompany the companyplainant to witness the actual transaction and track the accompanying companyversation and to give signal to the trap team at the appropriate point of time.
In his cross examination, the companyplainant admitted that M.S. Cheena, the then Superintendent of Police, Vigilance was posted as S.P, Moga but denied that he was related to him.
To reiterate, the High Court thus affirmed companyviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court.
He companyld number recall the date on which he had paid Rs.3,000/ for the first time to the original accused and admitted of number having made any companyplaint in companynection therewith.
Not only the date or time of first demand payment is number forthcoming and the allegation to that effect is rather omnibus, vague and sweeping, even the person in whose presence Rs.3,000/ at the first instance is alleged to have been paid i.e. Santosh Singh Lamberdar, has neither been produced in the investigation number at the trial.
This witness however stated in categorical terms that the companyplainant and the shadow witness went to the house of the original accused whereas the other members of the trap team waited outside and when Inspector Satpal flagged his signal, the house of the accused situated near Ajnala Police Station was raided.
P.C., the original accused denied the companyrectness of the incriminating evidence adduced by the prosecution and pleaded to be innocent.
The said officer after recording the statement of the companyplainant took preparatory steps to lay a trap to intercept the original accused and set up a trap team companystituting amongst others of Inspector Satpal PW2 and Aman Kumar PW3 .
Subsequent thereto, on the appointed day, the trap team visited the Ajnala Police Station, whereupon the companyplainant and the shadow witness met the original accused in his room.
He also denied the suggestion that the Mr. Cheena was the brain behind the raid and the registration of the case against the original accused.
In cross examination, this witness admitted that Mr. Mukhwinder Singh Cheena was at the relevant time posted as Superintendent of Police, Mohali and that he was his in charge, then.
The witness also proved the currency numberes as Ex.
Thereafter the original accused having enquired as to whether money had been brought, the companyplainant handed over the prepared currency numberes to the former, who kept it in a card board box placed on his table.
Currency numberes furnished by the companyplainant amounting to Rs.
Inspector Satpal PW2 , who was the shadow witness, after reiterating the statement of the companyplainant with regard to the pre trap proceedings, stated that he along with the companyplainant on that day met the original accused and followed to his quarter in the building of the police station whereafter the original accused enquired of the companyplainant as to whether he had brought the money, on which, the latter handed over three currency numberes denomination of Rs.500 and five currency numberes of Rs.100 each to him and that he kept the same in a card board box lying near him.
In support of the charge under Sections 7 and 13 2 of the Act laid by the prosecution, which the original accused denied, it examined several witnesses including the companyplainant Sarabjit Singh PW1 , the shadow witness Inspector Satpal PW2 , Aman Kumar PW3 and Paramjit Singh Khaira PW5 .
He also denied the suggestion that there was neither any demand for illegal gratification by the accused number was any sum as alleged accepted by or recovered from him.
The witness stated that he then gave a signal to the other members of the raiding party including the D.S.P. Vigilance who entered the room and undertook the steps pertaining to recovery and seizure as narrated by the companyplainant.
To the suggestions made, the witness stated that he had numberknowledge that the companyplainant was related to Mukhwinder Singh Cheena and that the latter had been pressurising the original accused number to pursue the case against the companyplainant.
He thereafter companystituted a trap team as above and treated currency numberes totalling Rs.2,000/ for the exercise and led the party to the Ajnala Police Station.
It would thus be patent from the materials on record that the evidence with regard to the demand of illegal gratification either of Rs.3,000/ which had been paid or of Rs.2,000/ as made on the day of trap operation is wholly inadequate to companyply with the pre requisites to companystitute the ingredients of the offence with which the original accused had been charged.
Inspector Satpal PW2 was numberinated as a shadow witness to accompany the companyplainant so as to be a witness to the possible transaction.
P1 to P8.
The witness further stated that the police party thereafter visited Ajnala Police Station and he and Inspector Satpal met the original accused in his room and on being asked as to whether the money had been brought or number, he handed over Rs.2,000/ as prepared to the original accused, who received the same and after companynting the money kept in a card board box.
We have heard Mr. O.P. Bhadani, learned companynsel for the appellant and Ms. Jaspreet Gogia, learned companynsel for the respondent.
The prosecution version is that on this, the shadow witness signalled the other members of the trap team waiting outside, who thereafter entered the room, companyfronted the original accused with the demand and receipt of the currency numberes whereupon, he took out the same from the card board box and handed over those to trap team.
2,000/ were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the companyplainant to be delivered to the original accused on demand.
Sans the unnecessary details, the essence of the prosecution case is that the predecessor of the appellant, Mukhtiar Singh also referred to hereinafter as original accused while was serving as Station House Officer of Police Station, Ajnala was entrusted with the investigation of the case launched against Sarabjit Singh companyplainant by his Sarabjit wife under Sections 406,498A IPC.
In cross examination, this witness did number refer to the quarter of the original accused in the building of the police station and stated that both he and the companyplainant met him in his room in the police station.
He proved as well the currency numberes as Ex.
Though this verdict was challenged before the High Court by the original companyvict, he, during the pendency of the appeal expired, whereupon the present appellant got herself substituted with a bid to purge him of the stigma.
He stated that the police party intercepted the accused and on being asked, he took out the currency numberes of Rs.2,000/ from the card board box placed on the nearby table which tallied with those mentioned in the pre trap, prepared memo and seized the currency numberes.
At this, the companyplainant approached the DSP, Vigilance, FS I Unit 2 Punjab, Chandigarh and lodged a companyplaint disclosing the above facts.
He admitted as well that the card board box companytaining the money was number seized.
In companyrse of his examination under Section 313 Cr.
It was alleged by the companyplainant Sarabjit Singh that the original accused in order to favour him in the investigation demanded and received bribe of Rs.
The appellant, heir of Mukhtiar Singh since deceased has carried this appeal to this Court against the affirmation of his companyviction under Sections 7 and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short, hereafter referred to as the Act , recorded at the first instance by the learned Special Judge, S.A.S. Nagar Mohali in his judgment and order dated 04.09.2009.
He stated that on that day, he recorded the statement of the companyplainant pertaining to the demand of illegal gratification made by the original accused.
AMITAVA ROY, J. Leave granted.
That the original accused threatened to harass the companyplainant if he did number submit to his demand, was also imputed.
He however denied the suggestion that he had been pressurising the original accused to companyclude the investigation in his favour and that he had implicated him falsely.
That the fingers of the original accused were dipped in the liquid companypound, which turned pink was also stated.
3,000/ from him Sarabjit and in the process and at the fag end of the probe, demanded a further amount of Rs.2,000/ as illegal gratification to file a report of exoneration.
