PUNJAB AND HARYANA HIGH COURT

                                                  Hoshiar Singh

                                                         Vs

                                                State of Haryana

                                               (K.S.Kumaran, J.)

                                                   01.05.1995

                                                 JUDGEMENT

K.S.Kumaran, J.

( 1. ) THE appellant Hoshiar Singh, son of Kalu Ram, faced trial under Section 13(1) (a) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for having received a sum of Rs. 2000/- as illegal
gratification from Buta Singh on 21.3.1990, while he (appellant) was working as a Tehsil Welfare
Officer, Jind. The learned Additional Sessions Judge-I, Jind, accordingly convicted and
sentenced the appellant herein to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, to pay Rs. 2000/-
as fine and in default to undergo R.I. for three months. The case of the prosecution briefly is as
follows :

( 2. ) THE Government of Haryana had decided to confer proprietary rights on pattedars of
certain lands. The complainant, Buta Singh (P.W.6), who is also one of the pattedars approached
the appellant-Hoshiar Singh, who was working as a Tehsil Welfare Officer, Jind, for the purpose
of getting the numbers of the land that was under the cultivation of Buta Singh PW so that he
could apply and get ownership. Hoshiar Singh is alleged to have demanded Rs. 2,000/- as illegal
gratification for giving the numbers. Buta Singh PW mentioned this to Sucha Singh (P.W.8) who
incidentally was also one of the pattedars intending to get proprietary rights in respect of some
lands. On the next day, Buta Singh and Sucha Singh PWs went to the Vigilance Inspector
Prakash Chand (P.W.11) and Buta Singh gave a statement (Ex.PA) which was recorded by him
(P.W.11). Buta Singh also gave Rs. 2,000/- in currency notes to the Vigilance Inspector PW11
and the numbers of these notes were also recorded in the statement Ex.P.A. This statement of
Buta Singh (Ex.P.A.), with the endorsement of the Vigilance Inspector, was sent to Police Station
S.V.B. Hissar on the basis of which a formal FIR (Ex.PA/1) was recorded. The Vigilance
Inspector (P.W.11) got the currency notes under memo Ex.PL, attested by Buta Singh and Sucha
Singh PWs. Vigilance Inspector filed an application before District Magistrate Jind for deploying
an officer for conducting a raid. Narinder Kumar Singla, City Magistrate, Jind (P.W.10) was
nominated by the District Magistrate. The Vigilance Inspector apprised Mr. Singla of these
facts. According to the prosecution, the Vigilance Inspector (P.W.11) gave a demonstration to
Messrs Singla, Sucha Singh, and Buta Singh PWs by treating phenolphthalein powder on a piece
of paper and then washing it with sodium carbonate water. The Vigilance Inspector put his
initials on the 20 currency notes and handed over the same to Buta Singh. Sucha Singh was
deployed as a shadow witness. They went towards the office where the appellant Hoshiar Singh
worked and stopped the jeep at a distance. Buta Singh PW was asked to give a signal after
paying the money to the appellant. Buta Singh went inside the office and after some time, he
along with the appellant-Hoshiar Singh went on a cycle rickshaw. They were followed by the
raiding party. Near about the bus stand, Hoshiar Singh received the money from Buta Singh PW.
Buta Singh gave a signal to Sucha Singh who, in turn, gave the signal to the raiding party.
Appellant-Hoshiar Singh was arrested. He was searched and the sum of Rs. 2,000/- with the
initials of the Vigilance Inspector, was seized from him. The hands of the appellant, the currency
notes and a pocket of the pant of the appellant (into which he had put the money) were washed
with sodium carbonate and the colour of the water turned pink.

( 3. ) IN order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses. PW6 is the
complainant Buta Singh, PW8 is a shadow witness Sucha Singh, PW10 is the City Magistrate,
Mr. Singla and PW11 is the Vigilance Inspector-Parkash Chand, who are important among them.
The learned Addl. Sessions Judge accepted the case of the prosecution and accordingly convicted
and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, aggrieved by which the appellant has come
forward with this appeal. ;