Note: This story has not been edited by LegalSeva and is generated from a news syndicate feed.

High court acquits appellant over contradictions in money recovery

Justice Manjari Nehru Kaul passed these orders last week while allowing an appeal filed by Parminderjit Singh Sodhi, who served as district development and panchayat officer (DDPO) in Punjab. He challenged the judgment dated July 12, 2008, through which he was convicted and sentenced to two years’ imprisonment by Special Judge Nawanshahr in a corruption case.

As per the allegations, while working as an inquiry officer related to the misappropriation of funds of Govt High School Sanawa, he aсcepted a bribe of Rs 3,000. A complaint was made against him by one Balbir Kaur, who was a member of a parents’ teacher association. The currency notes provided by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder. After verifying that the complainant was carrying no additional money, the tainted currency notes were handed over to her with instructions to deliver them to the accused upon demand.

As per the prearranged plan, the raiding team, led by DSP Amrik Singh, proceeded with the operation. The accused was caught red-handed, and the tainted currency notes were recovered from inside the drawer of his office table in Aug 2000.

Challenging his conviction, the appellant submitted that he was not able to extend any undue favour to the complainant and the tainted money was not recovered from his conscious possession but from the drawer of his office table. He claimed that he neither demanded nor accepted the amount and evidently the money was planted. He even claimed that on that day, he was attending a function organised on account of the chief minister’s visit to Banga.



Opposing his plea, the state counsel argued, “Even if the accused was not in a position to extend any favour, ex-planation sub-clause (d) to Section 7 of the PC Act makes it clear that the mere act of obtaining gratification is an offence.”

However, the HC acquitted the appellant from the charges, observing that when there are contradictions in the case of the prosecution regarding how the money was recovered and no evidence to establish that the accused physically handled or accepted the tainted money, the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act cannot be legally applied.


For case specific advice, get in touch with best Service Lawyers Punjab and Haryana High Court District Court Chandigarh Panchkula Mohali Derabassi Kharar.

More on 99888-17966

PC Act Lawyers HighCourt Chandigarh