Punjab: ASI convicted in ₹25K bribery case, sentenced to 3-year jail

A special court in Mohali has convicted Punjab Police assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Jagdish Lal, who was posted at Jaijon in Hoshiarpur district, in a 2019 corruption case and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for demanding and accepting a ₹25,000 bribe from a transporter

Mohali: A special court in Mohali has convicted Punjab Police assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Jagdish Lal, who was posted at Jaijon in Hoshiarpur district, in a 2019 corruption case and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for demanding and accepting a ₹25,000 bribe from a transporter.

A special court in Mohali has convicted Punjab Police assistant sub-inspector (ASI) Jagdish Lal, who was posted at Jaijon in Hoshiarpur district, in a 2019 corruption case and sentenced him to three years of rigorous imprisonment for demanding and accepting a ₹25,000 bribe from a transporter.

Special judge Hardip Singh held the accused guilty under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and also imposed a fine of ₹10,000. In default of payment, the convict will undergo an additional two months of rigorous imprisonment.

According to the prosecution, complainant Dharam Singh, who operates New PGR Transport Company at Rampura Phul, approached the Punjab Vigilance Bureau alleging that the ASI, then posted at Jaijon police post, was demanding money for allowing trucks carrying gravel and stone to pass through the area.

The prosecution said the accused initially demanded ₹1,000 per truck and later settled for ₹500 per truck. Acting on the complaint, vigilance officials laid a trap on August 1, 2019, after receiving information that ₹25,000 was to be handed over to the accused. During the raid, officials recovered currency notes from the ASI’s pocket.

Though the complainant initially turned hostile during the trial, the court noted that during cross-examination, he admitted to recording a conversation with the accused and identified both his own voice and that of the ASI in the audio clip played before the court. The court also relied on a forensic report stating that the questioned voice sample was that of the accused.

Rejecting the defence argument that the accused had been falsely implicated due to personal enmity involving another vigilance official, the court held that no material evidence had been produced to support the allegation of conspiracy.