BRAHM PARKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of ' 10,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of six months under Section 7 of the Act; sentenced to face rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and fine of ' 15,000/- and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of nine months under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C. has also been given to the Appellant.

(2.) Briefly stated, case of the prosecution is that the complainant had been running a cycle repairing shop in the name and style M/s. Pinky Cycle Works from Shop No. 6, Yadav Park, Najafgarh Road, Nangloi, Delhi. Appellant was the Area Licensing Inspector, posted in MCD office situated at Najafgarh Road. He had challaned the complainant on 31st March, 1999 for running the shop without a license, consequently, fine of ' 500/- was imposed on him by the Court. Thereafter, complainant applied for a license in the MCD office on 20th January, 2000. In this connection, complainant met the Appellant in his office and requested him for early issuance of his license. Appellant told the complainant that his work would not be done till he pays some "kharcha pani". On one Wednesday in the month of September, 2000, Appellant visited shop of the complainant and threatened him that in case a sum of ' 1500/- was not paid to him in his office by the following Monday, then his license would not be prepared and articles lying outside his shop would also be seized. Appellant told him to come to MCD office at 10:15 am on the following Monday with the money. Complainant went to Anti-Corruption Branch on 20th September, 2000 for lodging the complaint but he was asked to bring ' 1500/-. Accordingly, complainant arranged ' 1500/- by taking loan from his friend and went to Anti-Corruption Branch on 24th September, 2000. He was directed to come on 25th September, 2000 in the morning. Complainant reached Anti-Corruption Branch in the morning on 25th September, 2000 and met Inspector Niranjan Singh who recorded his statement and constituted a raiding party, wherein a public servant Partha Chakraborty (panch witness) was also joined. The numbers of fifteen currency notes of ' 100/- denomination were recorded in the pre-raid report. Currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and panch witness was asked to touch these notes, thereafter, his fingers were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. This demonstration was given to the panch witness and the complainant to show the significance of phenolphthalein powder treated currency notes. Thereafter, phenolphthalein powder treated currency notes were handed over to the complainant with the instructions to pass it on to the Appellant on his demand, in the presence of panch witness who was asked to accompany the complainant and watch the transaction and give signal to the raiding party by waving his right hand over his head after the transaction was over. Pre-raid report was prepared and duly signed by the Investigating Officer.

(3.) After completing pre-raid proceedings in the office of Anti-Corruption Branch, raiding party reached MCD office, Najafgarh Zone at about 10:00 AM. Complainant and panch witness went to room No. 12 at the second floor of the building to meet the Appellant at about 11:30 AM, however, appellant was not found present in his office. On enquiry it was revealed that he would come at about 12:15 PM. Raid Officer was informed about this fact. Complainant and panch witness kept on waiting for arrival of the Appellant at the ground floor of the building. At about 12:30 pm Appellant came there and went upstairs. Complainant and panch witness followed him to the second floor. Appellant first attended his office work and at about 1:00 PM he asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the bribe money. Complainant replied in affirmative and handed over phenolphthalein powder treated fifteen currency notes of ' 100/- denomination to the Appellant, who accepted the same with his right hand and kept in the right side pocket of his pant. After the bribe money was passed, the panch witness gave signal to the raiding party which arrived there. The complainant and panch witness informed the Raiding Officer that Appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe money. Appellant was challenged by the Raiding Officer by saying that he had demanded and obtained bribe from the complainant. On the direction of the Raid Officer, panch witness took search of the Appellant and fifteen currency notes of ' 100/- denomination were recovered from the right side pocket of his pant. Numbers of currency notes were tallied with the numbers of currency notes as mentioned in the pre-raid report. Right hand of the Appellant was dipped in the freshly prepared sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. This solution was then transferred in two clean glass bottles which were marked as "RHPPW-I" and "RHPPW-II" and labels of the bottles were signed by the