MEHKAR SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 20.09.2001 and Order of Sentence dated 24.09.2001, whereby, the appellant/accused was convicted by learned Special Judge under section 7 and 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act?) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years with a fine of '500/- on each count. In case of default in payment of fine he was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months each.

(2.) The prosecution case as set up in the complaint(Ex. PW3/A) against the appellant/ accused in brief is that, Rakesh Kumar, s/o Jugal Kishore, r/o Bapa Nagar, Karol Bagh, New Delhi (PW-3) was accused vide FIR No. 304/93 and 435/94 P.S. Nizammuddin lodged at the instance of his wife. The said cases were pending before Ms.Sunita Gupta, the then MM New Delhi. The appellant/accused ASI Mehkar Singh was posted in PS Nizammuddin and was the Investigation Officer (IO) of FIR No. 304/93, whereas HC Padam Singh was the IO of FIR No.435/94. The complainant got bail in FIR 304/93, but was allegedly put in custody by the accused. He had even filed a contempt petition against accused in that case, but the same was later dismissed by the court after the compromise was arrived at between the complainant and his wife.

(3.) On 20.10.1996 the complainant had gone to attend the case of FIR 435/93 at Patiala House Court where he met HC Padam Singh and also the accused. He was told by them to meet two days before 28.10.96, the next date of hearing in the case when they would tell him the weaknesses of case against him so that he could be saved. On 25.10.1996, he went to meet accused at PS Sriniwas Puri and not finding him there went to PCR Sarai Rohilla, where he met HC Padam Singh and after some time accused also reached there. Accused demanded '500 as bribe for each hearing if he wanted to save himself from the case against him. The complainant was also assured that the accused would get the evidence weakened. The accused asked him to come to Patiala House Courts on 28 th October, 1996 and bring '500/-. Based on this complaint, FIR (PW8/B) was registered. The necessary arrangements for laying trap were done. Two independent witnesses, namely, S.P. Gulati (PW-4) and Jai ram (PW-7) were arranged to attend the trap party. The complainant arranged '500/- in the currency notes of denomination of '100/-, the numbers of which were noted down. PW-4 was to act as a shadow witness, whereas PW-7 was to remain nearby to watch the proceedings. Pre-trap proceedings were conducted by (PW- 8) the I.O., who was also the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). The currency notes were given phenolphthalein powder treatment. With the help of Inspector B.K. Pradhan and PW4, the demonstration of the manner in which said power will react when brought in contact with the solution of sodium carbonate was given to the members of the raiding party including the complainant and the independent witnesses. All this was recorded in handing over memo (PW-3/B). The treated notes were given to the complainant with the instruction to handover to the accused on specific demand. The trap party left for Patiala House Courts at about 10am. Both the complainant and the shadow witness PW4 were sent to the court. Other members of the party took positions in the area. At about 10:15am, the complainant contacted the accused whereafter both of them went into court room No. 2 and PW4 followed them. The complainant and the accused were seen moving towards the lawyers chambers. The accused allegedly asked the complainant to give the money which he had asked for. The money was given to the accused, who accepted the same with his right hand. At this, PW4 gave the pre appointed signal to the trap party whereupon the members of the team rushed to the spot. The accused was apprehended by his wrists. The complainant as well as the shadow witness confirmed about accused having received the tainted money from the complainant with his right hand. The tainted Government Currency notes were recovered by PW-7 and he also compared the numbers of notes with the numbers already noted down in the handing over memo and found the same tallying. The washes of both the hands of the accused were taken separately which turned the solution pink. After the completion of the formalities, the accused was arrested. On completion of investigation the accused was challaned under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act. The accused denied the charges and pleaded not guilty. At the trial the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. The accused was also examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C, wherein he denied all incriminating evidence. He did not lead any evidence in defense.