Ex-SDM gets six-yr RI in graft case
The Court of Special Judge Amrinder Singh Shergill (Additional Sessions Judge) has convicted former SDM Parshotam Singh Sodhi (67), a resident of Sector 63, Mohali, on the accusations of criminal breach of trust and corruption. He was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of six years with a fine of Rs 70,000. The former SDM was already dismissed by the state government from the services.
Whereas co-accused Bhupinder Singh Bhinda, a resident of Julwheri Gehlan village, Fatehgarh Sahib, has been sentenced to undergo five years’ jail along with a fine of Rs 45,000. Another accused Gurdev, Singh, a resident of Adampur village in Fatehgarh Sahib, has been sentenced to undergo four-year jail term with a fine of Rs 31,000 and accused Naresh Kumar of Mehas Gate, Nabha, Patiala, has been sentenced to four years’ jail with a fine of Rs 25,000.
Pronouncing the verdict, the court held that the prosecution has successfully proved the charges levelled against the accused. The Judge turned down the plea of leniency raised by the convicts.
Additional Public Prosecutor Balwinder Singh apprised that a case against the accused was registered on an inquiry conducted by the Vigilance Bureau, following a writ petition filed in the High Court of Punjab and Haryana.
According to prosecution, Sodhi was posted as tehsildar, Nabha. It was pleaded that a land was allotted to Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur at Bhadson village, Hakimpura, on July 28, 1987, by the Rehabilitation Department.
On the complaint of Sant Jarnail Singh, disciple of Sant Hari Singh, a resident of Hakimpura, the accused cancelled the land allotted to Amar Kaur and Gurmeet Kaur at Bhadson and Hakimpura on frivolous grounds. Later without the approval of the competent authority, the land was allotted to co-accused Naresh Kumar on January 3, 1991. During Vigilance inquiry it transpired that all this was done in connivance with each other. Documents showed that Naresh Kumar has already entered into an agreement to sell on November 30,1991, which established malafide intentions of the accused, which also caused loss to the state exchequer.
However, during the trial, the accused pleaded innocence. But after appreciating the evidence on record, the court found them guilty and sentenced accordingly.
