H.L. KHANNA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in Criminal Appeal No. 1247 of 2001 (Old No. 462 of 1990), dated 30.09.2008. By the impugned judgment and order the High Court has affirmed the order of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption U.P. (East), Dehradun for the offence punishable Under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, "the Indian Penal Code") and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act"). Brief facts of the prosecution case are:

(2.) Accordingly, a trap was arranged wherein the Appellant was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting an illegal gratification of Rs. 250/- from PW-1. The said bribe money was recovered from the possession of the Appellant. Before framing of the charges the statement of the Appellant was recorded wherein he had stated that the money recovered was not bribe money but it was related to the routine give and take between him and PW-1. On 29.07.1986, the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption, U.P. (East), Dehradun framed charges against the Appellant Under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) to which the Appellant pleaded not guilty and the and the case was committed to Trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined eight witnesses in order to substantiate its case. The statement of the Appellant Under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was recorded wherein he has admitted to the recovery of Rs. 250/- and has stated that the said sum of Rs. 250/- recovered from him was not bribe money. The Appellant filed a written statement wherein he stated that the said sum of Rs. 250/- was a temporary loan given by the Appellant to PW-1 on 06.05.1985 and the said amount was in fact refunded by PW-1 on 11.05.1985 and a false case was concocted against the Appellant showing the said loan money as bribe. For the purpose of the said loan the Appellant asked PW-1 for a written receipt which PW-1 after duly signing gave to the Appellant.