PREM RAJ MEENA Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of learned Special Judge dated 25.10.2008 in CC No.3/2002 RC No.66(A)/2000 and the consequent order on sentence dated 31.10.2008 whereby the appellant Prem Raj Meena has been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo 1? years RI and to pay fine of '2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for the period of 15 days for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the P.C. Act. He has also been sentenced to undergo RI for the period of two years and to pay fine of '3,000/-, in default to undergo SI for the period of 30 days for the offence punishable under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of P.C. Act.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, relevant facts for the disposal of this appeal are that on 15.11.2000 complainant Puran Chand Nirala visited the CBI office and lodged a written complaint Ex.PW1/A claiming that he is a contractor of PWD Division IV. He was awarded one contract by PWD Division IV for whitewashing and painting of Flatted Factory Complex, Okhla in the month of January, 2000. The work was completed in March, 2000 and bill for '22,000/- in respect of said work was pending in the office of Executive Engineer PWD IV, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in October, 2000. In this connection the complainant had visited and met the appellant P.R. Meena several times but the bill was not cleared. On 15.11.2000, complainant again met the appellant to request for clearing of his bill and on this, the appellant demanded 5% of the bill amount i.e. '1,100/- as illegal gratification, failing which the appellant told that he wouldn't sign the cheque for the bill amount. On this complaint, formal FIR was registered and the investigation was entrusted to Inspector Om Prakash, CBI.

(3.) IT is further the case of the prosecution that the complainant and shadow witness informed that on entering the chamber of the appellant, the complainant asked him about his pending bill and on this the appellant directed the shadow witness to wait outside the office. Thereafter, the shadow witness went into the adjacent room from where he could see and hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant through partition made glass with grill. The complainant told the Investigating Officer that Meena had asked him whether he had brought the money and when he confirmed that he has brought the money '1,100/-, the appellant demanded money from him and on this complainant handed over the tainted money to the appellant who took it in his right hand and kept the money in his brief case without counting. One brief case was lying in the office of the appellant and on checking '1100/- were recovered from the said brief case which were found in contact with one blank envelop.