RAM CHANDER Vs. MOTI RAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two connected appeals assail the judgment dated 22nd January, 2002 convicting the appellants Ram Chander and Prem Dutt Sharma under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (hereinafter referred to as IPC, for short) read with Sections 7, 13 (2) and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act, for short) and also for substantive offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. By order on sentence dated 30th January, 2002, the appellants Ram Chander and Prem Dutt Sharma have been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of one year for the offences punishable under Sections 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act and pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- each and in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days. For the offences punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.3,000/- and in default of payment of fine suffer simple imprisonment of one month. For the offences punishable under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act the appellants have been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment of three years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default of payment of fine, undergo simple imprisonment of two months.

(2.) The allegations against the appellants are that they had demanded bribe from the complainant Sallan and the appellant Ram Chander was caught after he had accepted bribe of Rs.5,000/- pursuant to a trap, which was laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation (hereinafter referred to as CBI, for short). Facts of the case have been set out in detail in paragraph 2 to 6 of the impugned judgment, which for the sake of convenience are reproduced below:-

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that the learned trial court had erred in relying upon statement of Sallan (PW-2), the complainant, which is contradictory and, therefore, the said witness is not reliable. It was submitted that Sallan (PW-2) was an accomplice and his statement should not be relied upon. It was submitted that the independent witnesses namely, Inder Singh (PW-5) and Uday Bhan (PW-10) have not supported the prosecution case and even Sallauddin (PW-6), who was the employer of Sallan (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution version.