JAI PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Jai Prakash by the impugned judgment has been convicted for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Briefly the case of the prosecution is as follows :

(2.) ON 14-12-1981 Raman Kumar Sawhney, Proprietor of M/s. Veena Trading Company, went to the office of Superintendent of Police, CBI and submitted a complaint in writing to the effect that he had started the new work regarding supply of building material etc. to Government departments and in pursuance of an advertisement in a local newspaper, he applied for supply of different items in the office of Delhi Development Authority, Development Division No. 8 on 10-12-1981; that on 11-12-1981 he visited the said office and talked to Jai Prakash UDC, in order to know the fate of his quotation; that Jai Prakash told him that his quotation was lowest for coarse sand and spade (phawra) but since the matter was not pursued by him on 10-12-1981 the orders of supply was given to some one else; that Jai Prakash assured him that he can arrange to get the order of supply of coarse sand and other items if a sum of Rs. 100/- is paid to him as bribe; that the complainant told Jai Prakash that he did not have this much of amount on that day and it can be paid later on; that he was told by Jai Prakash that if he was interested in getting the work he has to pay Rs. 100/- as bribe on 14-12-1981 in the afternoon otherwise he could never think of getting any order from this office; that he was not interested to pay the bribe and so made a request for taking legal action. Shri Kanwaljit Singh, SP, CBI marked the complaint of Mr. R. K. Sawhney to Inspector Keshav Misra for necessary action. RC No. 62 was recorded and the case was entrusted to Inspector Misra for investigation. Inspector Misra took Raman Kumar Sawhney, complainant, to his room and after having a talk with the complainant he decided to lay a trap. Two independent witnesses, namely, Akhil Mohan Dubey and Sh. S. K. Manaria were joined from the Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi. Those witnesses were introduced to the complainant when Rs. 100/- were produced by him before Inspector Misra. The currency notes were treated with Phenol phthalein powder. A practical demonstration was made in the presence of the witnesses to explain to them that when the hands touching the treated notes were dipped in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate it turned pink. The treated currency notes were then returned to the complainant Raman Kumar Sawhney to whom the instructions were given that he should pass on the money to Jai Prakash only on his specific demand and that he should give signal by way of touching his head with the help of the hand after the completion of the transaction. Akhil Mohan Dubey was directed to be a shadow witness to remain close to the complainant in owner to overhear the conversation between the complainant and Jai Prakash and also to see the transaction between them while Sh. S. K. Manaria was asked to remain as close to complainant as possible to see the transaction. The raiding party reached the office of Jai Prakash in the after-lunch period when the complainant and Akhil Mohan Dubey were sent to him. The complainant talked to Jai Prakash in the presence of two independent witnesses. Jai Prakash demanded Rs. 100/- as illegal gratification from complainant and accepted the same in the presence of Akhil Mohan Dubey. This amount was taken by Jai Prakash in his right hand and he touched them with the help of his left hand and again kept the same in his right hand. The complainant gave agreed signal upon which other members of the raiding party moved ahead and the accused was apprehended. When Inspector Misra disclosed his identity and challenged Jai Prakash that he accepted the bribe money from Mr. R. K. Sawhney the accused kept mum and became perplexed. The amount was recovered from Jai Prakash and the hand washes of the accused were separately taken in solution of sodium carbonate. The right hand wash turned pink while the left hand wash remained colourless and the same were separately preserved in bottles which were sealed at the spot and these were signed by independent witnesses. The seal after use was handed over to Mr. S.K. Manaria and the numbers of currency notes recovered from the accused tallied with the members mentioned in the handing over memo. These were taken into possession after preparing recovery memo. The investigation was thereafter transferred to Inspector Rajinder Singh Panwar. The Investigating Officer recorded statements of the witnesses and arranged to send the sealed bottles to the C.F.S.L., R.K. Puram, New Delhi, wherefrom the report was received. The sanction for prosecution of the appellant was obtained from P. S. Gupta, Engineer, DDA, New Delhi.

(3.) THE complaint filed by Sh. R. K. Sawhney, complainant, is Ex. PW5/B. Sh. Frank Anthony, learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the name of Jai Prakash at points B, C and D in the complaint Ex. PW5/B was written subsequently and the name of the accused was written in the complaint only after a trap was laid which shows that the accused had been falsely implicated. Sh. S. K. Manaria PW-6 and Sh. Akhil Mohan Dubey, PW7 of Department of Industrial Development, Ministry of Industries, Udyog Bhawan, New Delhi, who are joined as independent witnesses, in their depositions have categorically stated that the complaint Ex. PW5/B was shown to them in CBI office. They had gone through the complaint and had even put questions to complainant to verify about the correctness of the claim. A perusal of their cross examination does not suggest that the name of Jai Prakash was not written in the complaint when it was given to him. The complainant PW5 Mr. Raman Kumar Sawhney stated in his deposition that he gave complaint Ex. PW5/B to Superintendent of Police, CBI who made an endorsement on point A on it in his presence. The complainant denied the suggestion that the name of Jai Prakash was written by him in the complaint with the same pen which was used by Superintendent. This suggestion also stands falsified from the statement of Sh. P.P. Singh, Handwriting and Finger Print Expert. On the basis of the evidence on record, it is not possible to agree with the statement that the Superintendent of Police would have made endorsement at point 'A' on complaint Ex. PW5/B in absence of the name of Jai Prakash mentioned at 3 places, namely, B, C and D in the complaint. Though it does appear that the name of Jai Prakash may not have been written simultaneously while writing the complaint but it does not follow therefrom that the name of Jai Prakash was not known to the complainant or the same had not been written in the complaint when it was handed over to the Superintendent of Police or that the name of Jai Prakash was written after the trap was laid. In my opinion, there is no substance in the contention of the learned counsel.