CHAND GAUR Vs. STATE OF DELHI CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In the present appeal, the Appellant has laid a challenge to the judgment dated 10th April, 2001, convicting the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) punishable under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (in short P.C. Act) and Section 201 IPC read with Section 511 IPC and the order dated 10th April, 2001 directing the Appellant to undergo the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of 40,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) The prosecution case in nutshell is that the Appellant while working as Assistant Sub-Inspector at P.S. Kalkaji, arrested the Complainant in FIR No. 101/1993 under Section 307 IPC on 14th March, 1993 in which he was bailed out from the court at Patiala House on the 17th March, 1993. The Appellant demanded 2000/- as bribe from Shri Ram Saran Tripathi, PW 1, the Complainant to help him in the case and that in case he did not pay the bribe amount he would ensure his conviction. On a demand from the Appellant, the Complainant made a complaint to CBI vide Ex. PW1/A on 27th March, 1993. On the basis of this complaint, a trap was laid on 28th March, 1993 when the Appellant had come to receive the illegal gratification from the Complainant at his office. The version of the Complainant PW1 was supported by his uncle PW 4 Nand Bahadur Pandey who also stated about the demand made to him by the Appellant on the 15th March, 1993 when the Complainant was in custody. During the trap, two independent witnesses PW6 Sh. V. K. Jain, Executive Engineer and PW2 Sh. Ashok Yadav, Accounts Manager were associated as panch witnesses. Since the Complainant was to inform the Appellant on the money being arranged, on 28th March, 1993, the Complainant called up the Appellant from his office to tell him that the money had been arranged, on which the Appellant asked if he could come and the Complainant replied him to come. This conversation was heard by PW-6 Sh. V.K. Jain from the parallel line of the telephone in the office of PW1. The Appellant came within five minutes. The proceedings were witnessed and conversation was heard by the shadow witness PW2 Ashok Yadav. After the Appellant accepted the money on a signal being raised by the Complainant, the Trap Officer, Sh. S.K. Peshin PW-8, Insp. Javed Shriraj and R.K. Chadha entered, caught hold of the wrist of the Appellant and apprehended him. His right hand was dipped in sodium carbonate solution which thereupon turned pink. However, the Appellant kicked the glass containing the right hand wash and thereafter the left hand wash and wash of the pocket was also taken which also turned pink. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed. Upon a trial of the Appellant he was convicted and sentenced as above.

(3.) Learned Counsel for the Appellant contends that there is no evidence of alleged demand of bribe. As per Ex. PW1/A, initial demand was made on 27th March, 1993 whereas PW1 in his testimony before Court says that the Appellant demanded illegal gratification on 19th March, 1993 and 21st March, 1993 which dates are not stated in the complaint Ex. PW1/A. PW4 Sh. Nand Bahadur Pandey who is the maternal uncle of the PW1, has given an entirely different version of demand. He has deposed that on the 15th March, 1993 when PW1 was produced by the Appellant in the Patiala House Court, the Appellant demanded 2000/- from him and told him that in that event he would ensure that the license of revolver of Ram Saran Tripathi i.e. PW1 will not be cancelled. The Appellant further told him that he would dilute the case against his nephew i.e PW1 and he would also dilute the case against him. The witness has further deposed that after his nephew PW1 was released on bail after 3/4 days and he told him about the said demand on which PW1 requested him to pen down a complaint on which he wrote the complaint Ex.PW1/A which was signed by his nephew PW1. Thus, from the analysis of this contradictory evidence, produced on record, there is a doubt cast upon the fact of initial demand which onus has not been discharged by the prosecution as it has not been able to prove the initial demand by the Appellant. Even the acceptance of the money by the Appellant has not been proved. The right hand wash has not been proved by the prosecution and as per the testimony of the Complainant PW1, he was not aware as to who took the left hand wash and the pocket wash of the Appellant. Moreover, PW-6 Sh. V.K. Jain in his cross-examination has stated that the pocket wash of the accused contained a milky white solution with sediments. PW 8 Sh. S.K. Peshin in his cross-examination also stated that the contents of the bottle Ex. PW 23 relating to shirt pocket wash were milky white solution. Though the learned trial court has taken a note of this fact but the same has not been considered. In the absence of the hand wash solution being proved to contain phenolphthalein powder, it cannot be connected to the alleged acceptance of the illegal gratification by the Appellant. No recovery of tainted currency notes from the Appellant has been proved. There is also no evidence placed on record as to who recovered the money from the Appellant, PW 1 in his cross-examination on 8th July, 1997 has stated that he cannot tell as to who recovered the money from the pocket of the Appellant.