SATISH CHANDER Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant who is the accused in the instant case has preferred an appeal under section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as P.C. Act) read with section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code) against the judgment dated 10.02.2003 and the sentence dated 13.02.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi wherein the accu s been convicted under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the P.C. Act and accordingly, directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a periodof three years on each count. In addition, a fine of Rs.5,000/- has been imposed on each count. THE sentence of imprisonment is to run concurrently while the other part pertaining to payment of fine is to run sequentially. In the event of default in payment of fine, the accused will be required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of four months on each count. THE fine has already been paid by the accused. A receipt of deposit dated 13.02.2003 evidencing the same has been filed.

(2.) THE substratum of the charge as against the accused, who is a police officer, is of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification from, one Dalbir Singh (PW-4), i.e., the complainant. THE case set up by the prosecution against the accused is briefly as follows :- 2.1 THE complainant (PW-4), who was at the relevant time was dealing in stone chips, used in construction of roads; had been for a long period of time accessing the same from Rangpuri Hills, located in the outskirts of Delhi. THE stone chips were transported by the complainant (PW-4) from Rangpuri Hills to his customers, directly in trucks, engaged by him. 2.2 THE accused at the relevant time was deployed as a Sub Inspector at the Vasant Kunj Police Station and by virtue of his engagement was in-charge of the aforementioned area. THE accused on becoming aware of the complainant?s business, approached the complainant (PW-4) in the beginning of March, 1995 for a bribe payable on a monthly basis, in order to enable him to carry on his business unimpeded. THE demand for illegal gratification was repeated by the accused on 09.03.1995 when he approached the complainant (PW-4). On the said date, the accused while allegedly demanding a sum of Rs.10,000/- p.m also conveyed to the complainant (PW4) that if for any reason the complainant (PW-4) was not able to pay the said sum in one shot, he could pay the same in three instalments. It is alleged that the accused prevailed upon the complainant (PW-4) to reach him a sum of Rs.3,000/- at the Vasant Kunj Police Station, in the evening of that very day i.e., 09.03.1995. 2.3 THE complainant, (PW-4) being harassed by the coercive approach of the accused, lodged a written complaint with the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, New Delhi on that very day at about 2.30 p.m. in the afternoon. 2.4 Based on the aforesaid complaint (Ex. PW4/A), a case was registered. A trap team was constituted headed by Mr. R.K. Chadha (PW-6) i.e., the Trap Laying Officer (in short, TLO). Apart from the personnel of the CBI, the trap team consisted of two independent witnesses, namely Mr. Shardha Nand (PW-1) and Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5); both being employees of Food Corporation of India (in short, FCI). Mr. Shardha Nand (PW-1) was employed as a Stenographer, while Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5) was employed as a Messenger. 2.5 On the constitution of the team, the complainant (PW-4) was introduced to the members of the team, in particular, to the two independent witnesses, Mr. Shardha Nand (PW-1) and Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5). For the benefit of the independent witnesses and other members of the team, pre-trap proceedings were conducted. At these proceedings (after the complaint (Ex.PW4/A) was shown to the members of the trap team), the manner of execution of the trap was explained to them. A demonstration was given, inter alia, with regard to the reaction of phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution. It was explained that on the phenolphthalein powder coming in contact with the colourless solution of sodium carbonate, the same would turn pink. Accordingly, the team members were explained the relevance of smearing the graft money with phenolphthalein powder. Thus, thirty (30) Government currency (G.C.) notes of a denomination of Rs.100/- each, handed over by the complainant (PW-4), were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. THE complainant (PW-4) was asked to hand over the said sum of money to the accused only on a specific demand being made by him. THE used solution of sodium carbonate was discarded. THE numbers of the thirty (30) GC notes of a denomination of Rs.100/- each were noted on a separate piece of paper marked Annexure A (Ex.PW1/A). A Handing Over Memo (Ex.PW1/B) was also prepared in which the pre-trap proceedings held in the CBI office were detailed out in extenso. THE Handing Over Memo (Ex.PW1/B) was signed by each member of the trap team including the two independent witnesses, Mr. Shardha Nand (PW-1) and Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5). THEreafter, the complainant (PW-4) kept the phenolphthalein coated G.C. notes amounting to Rs.3,000/- in the left pocket of his shirt. THE trap team left the CBI office at about 6.40 p.m., only to reach the Vasant Kunj Police Station at about 7.35 p.m. THE complainant (PW-4), and PW-1, who had been asked to act as a shadow witness and instructed to give a signal to other members of the trap-team (positioned in and around the police station) on the trap being executed, went into the room where the accused was supposed to be available. 2.6 At about 8.05 p.m., PW-1 gave a pre-arranged signal to the other members of the trap team. Upon receiving the signal, the other members of the trap team rushed into the room of the accused. THE accused was apprehended by PW-6 (i.e., the TLO) by his wrists and confronted with the allegation that he had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.3,000/- from the complainant. Evidently, the accused being perplexed, kept quiet. Since the complainant (PW-4) and PW-1 (i.e., the shadow witness) corroborated the demand and acceptance of the bribe as also narrated the conversation that took place between the complainant (PW-4) and the accused, a search of the accused was ordered by PW-6 (i.e., the TLO). Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5) carried out the search and consequently, recovered the tainted money from the right side pocket of the windcheater, which was worn by the accused at that point in time. THE numbers on the GC notes were tallied with those recorded in Annexure A (Ex. PW1/A), which was generated at the time of the pre-trap proceedings. It is alleged that both set of numbers tallied. Since the complainant (PW-4) and PW-1 had informed other members of the trap team that the accused on demanding the bribe had received the tainted GC notes in his right hand and kept the same, in the right side pocket of the windcheater, both the right hand of the accused as well as inner lining of the right side pocket of the windcheater were dipped in two separate solutions of sodium carbonate. Both the solutions turned pink. THE hand wash as well as the wash pertaining to the windcheater was preserved and sealed with the CBI seal. THE signatures of the two independent witnesses were also inscribed on the labels affixed on the outside of the said bottles. As to what transpired in the said trap proceedings was recorded in the Recovery Memo (Ex.PW-4/B). THE said Recovery Memo was signed by members of the trap team and the Station House Officer (in short, SHO) of the Vasant Vihar Police Station, who evidently was present at that point in time. THEreafter, the seals were handed over to Mr. Varinder Singh Daggar (PW-5). 2.7 A formal investigation was carried out in the matter whereupon, inter alia evidence was gathered that the business which was carried out by the complainant (PW-4) fell within the jurisdiction of the accused. Based on the evidence gathered during the investigation and at the time of execution of the trap, a request was made to the concerned authorities for grant of sanction to prosecute the accused. THE competent authority i.e., Mr. U.N.B. Rao, Dy. Commissioner of Police (PW-3), granted the sanction vide order dated 22.07.1995 (Ex.PW3/A). 2.8 Accordingly, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused. By an order dated 06.02.1997, the accused was charged on three counts. Since the accused pleaded not guilty to the charges framed against him and claimed trial, the case was put to trial. 2.9 It is pertinent to note that during the course of the trial, the accused had made an application under section 340 of the Code against the CBI officials including PW6 (i.e., the TLO) for having committed offences under sections 167, 192, 193, 196, 465, 466 and 471 of the Indian Penal Code, 1870 (in short, IPC). This application was not disposed of immediately and was therefore, dealt with by the trial court at the stage of final hearing. THE reason I am adverting to this application, is on account of the fact that arguments were made on behalf of the accused based on the said application which, I propose to deal with in the latter part of my judgment.

(3.) IN support of his submissions, the learned counsel for the accused placed reliance on the following judgments :- (i). Smt. Meena Vs. The State of Maharashtra, 2000(2) ACR 1143(SC); (ii). Satpaul Vs. Delhi Administration, Crl. A. No.137/1971, decided on 30.09.1975, AIR 1976 SC 294; (iii). Gulam Mahmood A. Malek Vs. State of Gujarat, Crl. A. No.47/1975 decided on 10.06.1980 AIR 1980 SC 1558; (iv). Abdul Rehman and Ors. Vs. The State of Bihar, Crl. A. No.585/1984 decided on 13.05.1991; (v). Balbir Singh Vs. D.N. Kadian, AIR 1986 SC 345; (vi). Roshan Lal Saini Vs. CBI, Crl. A. No.809/2005 decided on 08.10.2010; (vii). Chander Bhan Vs. State (CBI), Crl. A. No.300/1977 decided on 04.05.1998; and (viii). State of Maharashtra Vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, VI (2009) SLT 439.