O P CHHABRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant who has been convicted by the trial Court under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) vide order dated 31st July, 2010 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for a period of two years under each of the provisions with fine of Rs.2500/-.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for the purpose of deciding this appeal are that PW-2 Shri Praveen Gupta was running an STD booth, he had deposited Rs.5000/- with MTNL at the time of filing application. He received further demand asking him to deposit Rs.15000/- however this demand notice was received by him after the due date mentioned in the notice for deposit of the amount. He went to the O.P.Chabra (accused/appellant) Sr. Accounts Officer on 13.10.1998 and asked him to extend the time to deposit this additional demand till after Diwali. As per the complainant PW-2, Mr. Chabra did not agree to extend the time but when he persisted Mr. Chabra told him that it would cost him Rs.500/-. When he (complainant) stated that he could not pay the money Mr. Chabra behaved rudely with him. Complainant then talked to his (complainant's) father. His father was also against payment of bribe so he went to CBI Office. CBI official called him on 14.10.1998 along with five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and he went there on 14.10.1998 along with currency notes and lodged complaint Exh. PW-2/B. A trap was laid by CBI to catch the appellant red-handed while accepting bribe. The numbers of those five currency notes were noted and pre-raid proceedings were carried by CBI. Independent witnesses were called to accompany the complainant. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The independent witnesses were demonstrated how phenolphthalein is tested on hands as hand-wash turns sodium carbonate solution pink in colour. Thereafter a micro cassette recorder along with blank micro cassette was arranged. After preparing for the trap, the complainant was asked to proceed to the office of appellant. Before proceedings to the office of appellant the complainant talked to the appellant on telephone. This telephonic conversation between the appellant and the complainant was recorded and then played before the witnesses. In the telephonic conversation the complainant told the appellant that he could not come before lunch because of traffic jam and he would be a little late. However, he was bringing Rs.500/- with him. CBI team along with complainant and witnesses reached ISBT Kashmere Gate i.e. near the office of appellant. The complainant along with one witness was sent to the appellant's office. The witness was given a walkie talkie which he kept in his pocket and he was to give a signal to CBI team by tapping on the walkie talkie, on appellant's accepting the bribe. The complainant went to the office of accused/appellant along with witness and told that he had come for the STD. The accused asked him if he had brought the application he told that he had not brought the application. The accused told that order could be passed only on a formal application. The complainant said that work should be done even without application. Thereafter it is alleged that accused indicated him to put money on his table and he put money on his table. The complainant also talked with him about his STD and gave this STD number to him, which appellant noted on a slip of paper.

(3.) The counsel for the appellant argued that the case against the appellant has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction of the appellant was bad in law. The prosecution had miserably failed in proving demand of bribe or acceptance of bribe by the appellant. The fact that the complainant had approached appellant for extension of time for deposit of remaining amount is not denied and that fact that on the day of incidence, the complainant had reached the office of the appellant along with a witness around lunch time is also not denied. What is stated by the appellant is that he had not demanded bribe rather he insisted that the extension of time could not be done without application as the complainant had not brought the application. The amount of Rs.500/- was kept in the drawer of the appellant by the complainant when appellant, after taking lunch, had gone to wash his hands. It was submitted that the investigating officer in this case had recently been posted with CBI, it was first case of trap of the Investigating Officer and he wanted to make this case a successful case by hook or by crook. He therefore, did faulty investigation and the amount, though was not accepted by the appellant and was found lying in his drawer and it was shown as if he had accepted the bribe.