The High Court, by order dated 28.07.2011, companyfirmed the order of companyviction passed by the Special Judge while reducing the sentence of imprisonment from two years to one year for each of the two offences.
A glass of water was requisitioned and sodium carbonate was added to the water.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 03.05.2002, the appellant accused preferred a Criminal Appeal being No.
In order to prove the manner of investigation and various aspects relating to the prosecution one Kewal Krishan was examined as PW 5.
852 SB of 2002 before the High Court.
When both of them went inside the office, the appellant accused, who was sitting on a chair, on seeing them, asked the companyplainant if he had brought the money.
PW 5 is the official witness and was associated with the raid.
Thereupon, the investigating officer Shri Amar Nath, DSP, Vigilance Bureau along with the raiding party and the official witness Kewal Krishan PW 5 went inside the office of the appellant accused.
Brief facts Mukhtiar Singh the appellant herein was posted as Revenue Patwari at Patiala at the relevant time.
The appellant accused handed over the companyy of the jamabandi after obtaining the signature of the companyplainant.
20 T/2001/11.4.97 by affirming the companyviction while reducing the sentence.
500/ and Rs.
100/ smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after duly recording their numbers were handed over to the companyplainant.
When witness is examined on oath at length, it is quite possible for him to make some discrepancies.
After following the due procedure, the raiding party along with Arjan Singh PW 6 and Bakhshish Singh PW 8 reached the spot.
Being aggrieved by the order dated 28.07.2011, the appellant accused preferred this appeal by way of special leave before this Court.
After carrying out necessary formalities, the accused was arrested.
As per the prosecution, the appellant herein agreed to supply the companyy provided he was paid Rs.
Arjan Singh responded in affirmative and handed over the currency numberes to the appellant herein which was kept by the appellant accused in his right hand side upper drawer of the table.
The companyplainant was asked by the appellant herein to companye along with the money on the next day.
The shadow witness Bakhshish Singh came out of the office of the appellant accused and signaled in a specific manner.
When PW 6 replied positively, the appellant accused took from him six hundred rupees and put them in the right hand side upper drawer of his table and handed over to him the companyy of Jamabandi after obtaining his signature on a Register where the companyplainant signed and put the date as 06.09.1996.
The shadow witness came out of the office of the accused and signaled in a specific manner.
58 dated 06.09.1996 came to be registered under Sections 7 and 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in short the PC Act .
20 T/2001/11.4.97 companyvicted the appellant accused under Section 13 1 d read with Sections 13 2 and 7 of the PC Act and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment RI for 2 two years each under Section 7 and Section 13 2 of the Act with the direction that sentences shall run companycurrently.
When fingers of both the hands of the accused were made to be washed in the solution, the companyour of the solution turned light pink and the numbers of the currency numberes also tallied and they were taken into possession by investigating team.
Balbir Singh Kanungo PW 3 , a clerk of the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Patiala deposed before the companyrt that the appellant accused was working under him and he used to receive writings of the accused.
The companyplainant PW 6 , who was number willing to pay the bribe to the appellant herein, disclosed the entire incident before one Bakhshish Singh PW 8 and requested for his help.
PW 5 companypletely companyroborated with the statement of the companyplainant Arjan Singh PW 6 .
On the abovesaid companyplaint, a trap was laid and currency numberes in the denomination of Rs.
100/ duly smeared with phenolphthalein powder and after recording their numbers.
Thereupon, DSP Amar Nath along with other members of the raiding party went inside the office of the accused.
Though learned companynsel for the appellant accused pointed out the flaws in the process, numberdiscrepancy was found with respect to the material aspects of the matter such as recovery of the incriminating currency numberes, their identity or the credibility of the witnesses.
600/ .
When the companyplainant went inside the office along with Bakhshish Singh, he found the appellant herein sitting on his chair and on seeing them the appellant herein asked the companyplainant if he had brought the money.
On 06.09.1996, Bakhshish Singh and Arjan Singh lodged a written companyplaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance Bureau, Patiala.
One Arjan Singh the companyplainant approached the appellant herein in his office and requested for a companyy of Jamabandi of his land for the year 1992 93.
852 SB of 2002 whereby the High Court disposed of the appeal filed by the appellant herein against the judgment and order dated 03.05.2002 passed by the Special Judge, Patiala in C.C. No.
K. Agrawal, J. This appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated 28.07.2011 passed by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh in Criminal Appeal No.
