TARSEM LAL VERMA Vs. STATE GOVT OF NCT

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th January, 2002 and order of sentence dated 28th January, 2002 of Special Judge, Shri R.K. Gauba. By the impugned judgment and order, the accused/appellant was convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (for short "the Code") and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to undergo three years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 161 of the Code and four years rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs.500/- under Section 5(2) of P.C. Act. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further RI of three months on each count.

(2.) The appellant was an employee of Maruti Udyog Limited (MUL) as Picker in spare parts department. The allegations against him as set out in the complaint (Exhibit PW1/A) made by Naresh Batra, Manager Spare Parts of M/s.Competent Automobiles Company (P) Limited are that their company had booked an order with MUL for supply of spare parts against advance payment. The accused, who was posted as a Picker in the spare parts department of MUL, came to him and told him that he along with two other Pickers, namely, Ganpat and Vinod, has placed additional spare parts in the goods packed against their order and for which he demanded a sum of Rs.12,000/- as bribe to be shared by all of them. Accused came in the office of the complainant on 26th August, 1988 and handed over two slips mentioning the details of the surplus goods. The complainant handed over the complaint (PW1/A) along with these two slips mentioning details of the goods and their value as given to him by the accused to SP(CBI) on 26th August, 1988.

(3.) Based on this, a case was registered and trap was laid by the CBI. The trap party comprised of Inspector Rai Singh Khatri (PW8), two independent witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar Mishra (PW4) and Rohtash (PW7) and certain other CBI officials. The complainant (PW1) produced amount of Rs.12,000/- in the form of government currency notes (Exhibits P.4 to P.120) each of denomination of Rs.100/-. The usual trap procedure was followed by giving treatment of phenolphthalein powder to the currency notes and noting their numbers and also demonstration of procedure in the presence of members of raiding party. PW4 and PW7, the two independent witnesses, were directed to remain close to the complainant (PW1), while other members of the raiding party were instructed to remain nearby. All the pre-raid preparations were reduced into writing in the form of Handing Over Memo (Exhibit PW1/B), which was signed by DSP Darshan Singh, complainant, two other independent witnesses and other members of the raiding party. The raiding party reached the premises of Competent Automobile at about 5.15 PM. Accused also arrived there. PW1 and PW7 talked to the accused, who demanded money and which was passed on to him by the complainant (PW1) in the presence of PW4 and PW7. PW1 gave the pre-appointed signal whereby other members of the raiding party came on the scene and caught the accused. The tainted currency notes were taken out of the right pocket of pant of the accused by PW4 and he tallied the numbers with the handing over memo (Exhibit PW1/B). The accused was made to dip fingers of his both hands in separate solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink in the process. Similarly, the wash of right side pant pocket of the accused was taken which turned the solution of Sodium Carbonate pink. The three separate solutions were sealed separately and taken into possession vide a memo (Exhibit PW1/C). The accused was arrested and the samples were sent to CFSL which on analysis gave positive result of presence of phenolphthalein powder. The accused was chargesheeted under Section 161 of the Code and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(d) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and was put on trial. The prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses. The accused did not choose to lead any evidence in his defence. Except the complainant (PW1), two independent witnesses, namely, Santosh Kumar Mishra (PW4), Rohtash (PW7) and Inspector Rai Singh Khatri (PW8), all other witnesses are either of formal nature or their testimonies are not under challenge.