The companyaccused Mahesh Kumar was, however, acquitted of all the charges.
The third Appeal No.1328 SB of 2009 was filed by the State of Haryana against the acquittal of Mahesh Kumar of the charges framed against him.
The matter was endorsed by the Superintendent of Police to the Vigilance Inspector before whom the companyplainant produced Rs.2,000/ for the purpose of laying a trap.
The hands of both Kewal Kumar and Mahesh Kumar were got washed separately in a solution of Sodium Carbonate, the companyour of which turned pink.
After such checking, the said Anil Kumar was made to sign on a paper and was informed that the load in the meter was in excess of the permissible load and the matter would have to be reported to the Board which companyld entail a fine of at least Rs.14,000 15,000/ .
On 19th April, 2002, Kewal Kumar and the Appellant herein, who were employed as Assistant Lineman and Meter Reader, respectively, under the Electricity Board, Sadhaura, came to his house for checking the electric meter.
The judgment and order of the Trial Court was questioned before the High Court in Criminal Appeal No.427 SB of 2005 filed by Keshav Dutt, the Appellant herein, and Criminal Appeal No.438 SB of 2005 filed by Kewal Kumar.
All the three accused were charged under Section 7 read with Section 13 1 d of the above mentioned Act and were companyvicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinbefore.
The High Court also dismissed the Appeal preferred by the State.
The High Court while affirming the judgment of the Trial Court as far as Kewal Kumar and the Appellant are companycerned, reduced the sentence of imprisonment from three years to one year.
It is against the said order that the present Special Leave Petition has been filed.
The accused were put under arrest and after police investigation, a charge sheet was filed against them in Court for their trial.
The further case of the prosecution is that on 25th April, 2002, both the accused came to Anil Kumars house and, once again, demanded the bribe money and ultimately the said two accused agreed to accept a sum of Rs.2,000/ between 4.00 5.00 p.m. on the next date, failing which the case against him would have to be made ready, but if payment was made, the matter would be hushed up.
The accused persons then informed him that he would have to pay a sum of Rs.7,000/ as bribe if he wanted the case to be hushed up.
Kewal Kumar indicated that the money had been given to Mahesh Kumar and on demand Mahesh Kumar made over the same to the Inspector.
According to the prosecution, on 23rd April, 2002, one Anil Kumar, son of Kewal Prakash Mehta, made an application to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Ambala, stating that he was running a dairy adjoining his house.
ALTAMAS KABIR, J. Leave granted.
The Appellant and one Kewal Kumar were companyvicted by the Special Judge, Yamuna Nagar at Jagadhari, under Section 13 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ , in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months.
Ultimately, the accused Kewal Kumar as well as Mahesh Kumar came to the companyplainants house and went inside and on a signal being given, the members of the raiding party went inside the house and asked Kewal Kumar to hand over the bribe money which he had taken from the companyplainant.
