A special CBI court on Monday sentenced a Chandigarh Public Works Department (PWD) employee (now retired) to four years of rigorous imprisonment under each of two provisions of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of ₹3,500 to process pension arrear bills linked to a deceased employee eight years ago.
Special judge Bhawna Jain also imposed a fine of ₹10,000 under each provision on convict Fateh Singh, 61, with six months of simple imprisonment in default of payment of each fine. Both substantive sentences will run concurrently.
Singh has been convicted under Section 7 (bribery) and Section 13(1)(d), punishable under Section 13(2) (criminal misconduct by a public servant) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The case dates back to June 2018, when complainant Rajinder Kumar approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI), alleging that Singh, posted as a PWD peon but handling the work of a bill assistant, had demanded money to process arrears payable to his mother following his father’s death.
According to the prosecution, Singh initially demanded ₹4,000, which he later reduced to ₹3,500. The CBI laid a trap on June 6, 2018, and recovered seven ₹500 currency notes from his trouser pocket.
The court relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by the shadow witness, recovery witness and other members of the trap team. It also considered audio-video recordings and forensic reports confirming traces of phenolphthalein powder in the accused’s hand- and trouser-pocket washes. Forensic experts found no editing or tampering in the footage examined.
{{/usCountry}}The court relied on the complainant’s testimony, corroborated by the shadow witness, recovery witness and other members of the trap team. It also considered audio-video recordings and forensic reports confirming traces of phenolphthalein powder in the accused’s hand- and trouser-pocket washes. Forensic experts found no editing or tampering in the footage examined.
{{/usCountry}}Rejecting the defence argument that Singh had no formal authority to handle bills, the court observed that departmental witnesses had established that he had been performing bill assistant duties for years despite the absence of a written office order assigning him the role.
While seeking leniency, Singh cited his service record, the absence of any other criminal case or departmental inquiry, his two unmarried children, and his treatment for acute depression since 2019. The defence also urged the court to consider the small amount involved and his family circumstances.
The CBI, however, sought a stiff sentence to deter others from engaging in corruption.
The court cited the Supreme Court’s observations in Neeraj Dutta vs State (Government of NCT of Delhi) and State of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal, highlighting the widespread and damaging effects of corruption by public servants. It held that Singh deserved punishment to deter similar conduct and curb the menace of corruption.
The court also directed that any period of detention already undergone by the convict during the investigation, inquiry, or trial be set off against the substantive sentences.