HARVINDER SINGH KOHLI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal under Section 27 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ("the Act" for short) read with Section 374(2) of Criminal Procedure Code has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 4th August, 2010 and the order on sentence dated 5th August, 2010 passed by learned Special Judge whereby the appellant was found guilty of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo two years imprisonment each and a fine of Rs.5,000/- each under the two offences for which he was convicted.

(2.) The facts relevant for the purpose of deciding the present appeal are that the appellant Harvinder Singh Kohli was working as Area Health Inspector of the area where sweet shop of complainant was situated viz. D-300, Tagore Garden, New Delhi. The father of complainant had died on 13th March, 2003. The complainant wanted to get the license of the said shop, granted in the name of his deceased father and valid upto 31st March, 2004, to be transferred in his name as now he had started running the said shop. A demand of bribe was made by the appellant. The complainant objected to it and made a complaint in this regard to Mr. Ranjan Das, Deputy Health Officer. However, that proved counterproductive, since Mr. Ranjan Das also told the complainant to pay the bribe. Encouraged by this, the appellant not only wanted the complainant to pay the bribe for transferring the license of the said shop in his name but also wanted him to pay "monthly bribe" of Rs.300/- per month. The complainant told appellant that he was a poor person and would not be able to pay the monthly bribe of Rs.300 per month. On this, the amount of monthly bribe was reduced to Rs.200. The complainant, instead of paying the monthly bribe decided to make a complaint to Anti Corruption Branch so he went to Anti Corruption Branch on 21st October 2003 and lodged a complaint about demand of bribe by appellant. The Anti Corruption Branch summoned an independent witness who accompanied the complainant to witness the demand and giving of bribe. A raiding party was constituted to follow the complainant and the witness. Two currency notes of Rs.100 each coated with phenolphthalein powder were handed over to the complainant. The complainant went to office of the appellant along with the witness. There the appellant demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.200 from the complainant in presence of the punch witness. A pre-determined signal/ indication was given to the raiding party. The raiding party immediately after acceptance of bribe, conducted a raid and the bribe amount of Rs.200 was recovered from the appellant. The remaining proceedings of the raid were completed and after completion of the investigation, the appellant was tried for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the P.C. Act. He suffered conviction, as stated above.

(3.) The appellant has preferred this appeal on the ground that the learned trial court did not appreciate the facts properly. There was no demand for bribe made by the appellant. The bribe money was put forcibly into the hands of the appellant to make the raid successful by the investigating officer and the learned trial court wrongly concluded that this defence was an afterthought. It is further submitted that it was not proved that the job of transferring the license in the name of complainant was to be done by the appellant/accused neither the record of MCD regarding applying for license or orders was proved before the learned trial court and if the complainant was to be believed, the bribe demand was actually made by Deputy Health Officer Mr. Ranjan Das for getting the work done. According to him, initially demand was of Rs.5,000/- and thereafter when he met him second time, demand put to him was Rs.1500/-, out of this he had given Rs.500 and got the license transferred, so there was no occasion for him to come to MCD office to pay further money. It is argued that the complainant in his statement has stated that the renewed license was retained back and he was only given the receipt but this renewed license and the receipt have not been proved and this throws doubt on the prosecution story.