ANNA WANKHADE Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has been convicted by learned Special Judge, Shri R.K. Gauba, in Corruption Case No.14/98 vide judgment dated 6th September, 2002 and sentenced vide order dated 10 th September, 2002 as under:-

(2.) BY virtue of the present appeal, the appellant has assailed the conviction imposed upon him by the learned Special Judge. The prosecution story as set out briefly is that one Anil Kumar Sharma (PW6) was allottee of a flat from Delhi Development Authority (DDA). Though he had made entire payment along with interest, but the possession of the flat and other formalities remained to be completed on the part of DDA. On behalf of Anil Kumar Sharma (PW6), his brother in law, Mr.K.S. Bhardwaj (PW3), complainant in this case was making representations to the concerned authorities in DDA regarding expediting the handing over of the possession of the flat. It so happened that the accused was dealing with the matter of the completion of the formalities regarding handing over possession of the flat allotted in favour of PW6. It is in this connection that the complainant PW3 came in contact with accused and met him several times for doing the needful. During the process, the accused allegedly demanded a sum of Rs. 10,000.00 from PW3 and to be paid to him in his office on 30th June after 2 PM. The complainant (PW3) instead approached CBI and made a complaint (Ex.PW3/A) on 30th June stating that he did not want to pay any bribe and want to take legal action against the accused. On this FIR (Ex.PW7/B) came to be registered. The matter was entrusted to Investigating Officer (IO), Inspector Anil Sharma (PW7), for laying trap. I.O. (PW7) requisitioned two independent witnesses, namely, Prem Narain (PW2) and Pawan Kumar (PW5), the clerks from the office of NDMC. PW6 arranged Rs. 4,000.00 in the form of 40 currency notes of denomination of Rs. 100.00 each (Ex.P1 to P40), the numbers of which were noted down in the memo (Ex.PW2/B) prepared during the pre-trap proceedings. The usual procedure of treating the notes with phenolphthalein powder and giving demonstration thereof regarding the manner in which it reacts, was all done by I.O.(PW7) in the presence of complainant (PW3), Ajit Kumar Sharma (PW6) and two independent witnesses (PW2 and PW5). The treated currency notes were handed over to the complainant with the instruction to hand them over to the accused on specific demand. PW2 was directed to remain with the complainant as a shadow witnesses and to hear the conversation and observe the proceedings. He was also instructed to give signal after completion of the transaction. As per the pre-arranged programme, the trap party reached the office of DDA. Complainant (PW3), his brother in law, Mr.Anil Kumar Sharma (PW6), and the shadow witness (PW2) went to contact the accused in his office. It is during this meeting that the accused allegedly repeated the demand of bribe in the presence of shadow witness. The complainant handed over the trap money to the accused which was taken by him with his left hand. Immediately thereafter the shadow witness gave pre-determined signal and thereupon the raiding party rushed and apprehended the accused. The trap money was recovered from his left hand through PW5. In the meantime, R.K. Azad (PW9), Assistant Director of the concerned Section of DDA, also reached there and rest of the formalities including taking wash of left hand of the accused and preparation of documents etc. was done in his presence. After the required sanction (PW1/A), the accused was sent for prosecution.

(3.) THE foremost contention that was sought to be raised by the learned counsel for the defence was that the accused has been falsely implicated by PW3 in collusion with CBI. He submitted that the allottee of the flat in question was Ajit Kumar Sharma (PW6) and not the complainant (PW3) and so the latter had no business to approach the accused for asking for issue of possession letter. He also submitted that it was PW3, who had submitted documents under the forged signatures of PW6 without any authority letter or power of attorney of PW6 in this regard. Learned counsel drew my attention to some part of the cross-examination of PW6, Ajit Kumar Sharma, who was allottee of the flat.