SABINA, J.
Appellant had faced trial under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘Act’ for short) in FIR No. 47 Dated 24.8.1999, registered at Police Station Vigilance Bureau, Patiala. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment/order dated 6.11.2006 ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Hence, the present appeal.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Randhir Singh had been sanctioned a loan to the tune of Rs. 8,000/- under the Rozgar Yojna Scheme. Complainant had received his installment of the loan amount to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-. However, when the complainant met the appellant with regard to his second loan installment to the tune of Rs. 4,000/-, the appellant demanded Rs. 800/- from him towards illegal gratification. On 23.8.1999, the matter was settled at Rs. 500/-. Complainant met the Deputy Superintendent of Police (‘DSP’ for short), Vigilance Bureau on 24.8.1999 Complainant and shadow witness Gurmail Singh were shown the demonstration with regard to working of the Phenolphthalein powder (‘P-Powder’ for short). The complainant handed over five currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each to the DSP. The said currency notes were returned to the complainant after application of P-Powder. Thereafter, the raiding party reached the office of the appellant along with other witnesses. Complainant and the shadow witness went to the office of the appellant. The remaining raiding party stayed behind. Complainant handed over the tainted currency notes to the appellant on demand. The appellant kept the said currency notes in the pocket of his shirt. On receipt of signal from the shadow witness, the raiding party reached the spot. When the hands of the appellant were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate by the DSP, the colour of the solution turned pink. The tainted currency notes were recovered from the table of the appellant as he had kept the same on the table from his shirt pocket on seeing the police party. When the shirt pocket of the appellant was dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution turned pink.
Prosecution, in order to prove its case, led its evidence.
Appellant when examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, pleaded as under:-
“I am innocent and have committed no offence. I have been falsely implicated in this case. No demand has ever been made or accepted by me. No recovery has ever been effected from me.”
Complainant while appearing in the witness box as PW-1 and the shadow witness, while appearing in the witness box as PW-2, in their examination-in-chief, duly supported the prosecution case. PW-3 Darshan Singh official witness also supported the prosecution case with regard to recovery of the tainted currency notes from the appellant. The investigating officer, while appearing in the witness box as PW-9, also deposed as per the prosecution case. PW-10 Gulzar Singh proved the sanction order.
Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the prosecution had miserably failed to prove its case. PW-10 had failed to identify the officer who had granted sanction for prosecution of the appellant. From the statement of the complainant it could not be said that the appellant had demanded or accepted bribe from the complainant.
Learned State counsel, on the other hand, has submitted that prosecution had been successful in proving its case. The appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe money from the complainant and the same had been recovered from the appellant in the presence of raiding party.
After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned State counsel, I am of the opinion that the instant appeal deserves dismissal.
In the present case, the prosecution story is that the appellant had demanded bribe from complainant Randhir Singh at the time of release of his second installment to the tune of Rs. 4,000/- towards Jawahar Employment Scheme. PW-7 Baldev Singh has deposed that the appellant was Clerk in their office and was dealing with Jawahar Rozgar Scheme. PW-10 Gulzar Singh has deposed that he had put up the file before Administrator-cum-Deputy Commissioner, Ropar with regard to sanction for prosecution of the appellant. The Administrator, after going through the contents of the file, had accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant. Although the said witnesses could not identify the name of the officer who had signed the sanction order but from his statement it is evident that the sanction order (Ex. PM) was passed in his presence. The fact that the said witness had failed to identify the name of the officer who had signed the sanction order, fails to advance the case of the appellant as from the statement of PW-10, it is evident that the concerned officer, after going through the contents of the file, had accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant in the presence of the said witness. The sanction order (Ex. PM) is dated 16.5.2000 whereas the statement of PW-10 was recorded on 9.8.2006 Apparently, due to said long gap the witness could not give the name of the officer who had passed the sanction order but had been successful in establishing that the sanction for prosecution of the appellant had been given by the officer in his presence after going through the contents of the file. Hence, the argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant to the effect that the sanction order had not been duly proved in the present case is without any basis.
Complainant as well as the shadow witness have duly established the prosecution case. As per the complainant, appellant had demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification from him for release of his second loan installment. On his statement a raid was organized by the Vigilance Department. He had entered the office of the appellant along with the shadow witness. Thereafter, he had handed over the tainted currency notes to the tune of Rs. 500/- to the appellant on demand. The said currency notes were kept by the appellant in his shirt pocket. Thereafter, the shadow witness had given the signal to the raiding party. On seeing the raiding party, the appellant had taken out the currency notes from his pocket and had kept the same on the table. The currency notes were recovered by the raiding party from the table of the appellant. When the hands of the appellant and his shirt pocket were dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of the solution had turned pink. The said aspect has been duly corroborated by the shadow witness, PW-3 Darshan Singh official witness and the investigating officer.
Thus, from the prosecution evidence, it was evident that the appellant had demanded and accepted bribe from the complainant. The said currency notes were recovered from the table of the appellant by the raiding party. The hand wash and the shirt pocket wash of the appellant reveal that the tainted currency notes had been dealt by the appellant. Hence, the Trial Court had rightly ordered the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the Act
No ground for interference is made out.
Dismissed.