PRAKASH CHAND Vs. STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant before us was convicted by the learned Special Judge, Delhi, of an offence under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code, and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-. The conviction and sentence were confirmed by the High Court and the appellant has come up in appeal by special leave. The prosecution case briefly was as follows:

(2.) P. W. 6 Ram Niwas Sharma, an Architect by profession prepared building plans for one H. L. Batla and submitted them to the Delhi Development Authority for sanction. The plans were submitted on 6th May, 1969. They were rejected on 28th May, 1969. Revised plans were thereafter submitted on 16th June, 1969. Certain objections were raised and in order to comply with those objections P. W. 6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority on 11-7-1969. He met the accused who was Overseer-Section Officer and asked him to be permitted to make necessary corrections in the building plans. Instead of giving the file to P. W. 6 the accused demanded a sum of Rs.30/- as bribe. P. W. 6 told him that he did not have the money with him whereupon the accused asked him to come on 14th July, 1969, in the afternoon with the money. On 14th July, 1969, P. W. 6 went to the Anti-Corruption Office at about 12 noon and gave a report Ex. P. W. 1/A to P. W.9, an Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Establishment, P. W. 9 sent for P. Ws. 1 and 2 from the Sales Tax Office. The report made by P. W. 6 was read over to them. Thereafter, P. W. 6 produced three ten rupee notes, the number of which were noted by P. W. 9 in the presence of the Panch witnesses P. Ws. 1 and 2. Thereafter it was arranged that they should all proceed to the office of the Delhi Development Authority. There P. W. 6 was to give the bribe to the accused and on his giving the bribe to the accused, P. W. 1 was to give a signal to P. W. 9. As arranged, P. W. 6 went to the office of the Delhi Development Authority along with Panch witnesses. The Inspector stopped at the door of the room. P. W. 6 went to the table of the accused and asked him for the file for the purpose of making necessary corrections in the building plans. The accused asked him if he had brought the money. On his saying 'yes', the file was taken out and given to P. W. 6. As there were a number of other files on the table of the accused, P. W. 6 took the file to another table at a distance of one or two paces from the table of the accused. After making the corrections P. W. 6 handed over the file to the accused along with Rs.30/-. Instead of taking the money, the accused asked P. W. 6 to place the money in the file which he accordingly did. The accused then took the file and placed it under the table, putting his foot on it. At that stage P. W. 1 gave the agreed signal. P. W. 9 came to the room, disclosed his identity to the accused and questioned him whether he had accepted Rs.30/- from P. W. 6. The accused was stunned and kept mum. P. W. 9 was then informed by P. W. 6 and the two panch witnesses that the money was kept in the file under the foot of the accused. P. W. 9 then took out the file and found the sum of Rupees 30/- in the file. The numbers of the currency notes were compared with the numbers earlier noted at the Anti-Corruption Office. Thereafter, P. W. 9 sent the raid report. On receipt of it, P. W. 7, Deputy Superintendent of Police took over the investigation. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was laid and the accused was duly tried, convicted and sentenced as aforesaid. The defence of the accused was that page No. W. 6 met him on 11th July, 1969 and wanted to make some corrections. He told him that he should file the original sale deed. P. W. 6 then said that he would come on Monday with the original sale deed. On 14th July, 1969, P. W. 6 came to his office and wanted the file for making the necessary corrections. He took out the file and gave it to P. W. 6, P. W. 6 took the file to another table and brought it back to him after 2 or 3 minutes. According to the accused, P. W. 6 must have put the money into the file when he had taken the file to the other table. When the Police Officer came in and questioned him about the receipt of the bribe he straightway told him that he had not taken any money from P. W. 6. According to the accused, P. W. 6 was annoyed with him on 11th July, 1969, as he thought that he (accused) was delaying his work. He also stated that Mr. Batla the owner of the plot had threatened him with dire consequences because he had raised objections to the plans submitted by him.

(3.) Both the Panch witnesses examined by the prosecution did not fully support the prosecution case. They resiled from the earlier statement made by them during the course of investigation. P. W. 1 stated that when P. W. 6 went into the room where the accused was working there was some talk between P. W. 6 and the accused but he did not hear what it was. He saw the accused taking out the file from the Almirah and giving it to P. W. 6. P. W. 6 took it to another table and was writing something in the file. Then he took back the file to the accused. The accused was busy with his own work. The complainant placed three ten Rupees notes in the file and handed over the file to the accused who placed it under the table near his feet. P. W. 6 signelled to him and he gave the agreed signal. The Inspector then entered the room and questioned the accused about the receipt of the bribe. The accused denied the charge. He (P. W. 1) then informed the Inspector that the money was in the file. The money was recovered from the file. The prosecution was permitted to cross-examine him. In cross-examination his earlier statements to the Investigation Officer were put to him. He admitted in cross-examination that when questioned by the Inspector the accused kept silent for some time as he was perplexed but thereafter told the Inspector that he had not taken any money. The evidence of the order witness P. W. 2 was on the same lines as P. W. 1 except that he stated that when questioned by the Inspector the accused kept mum and was perplexed. P. W. 2 was also cross-examined by the prosecution and the statements made by him to the Investigating Officer were put to him.