S C GOEL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS Appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge (CBI) whereby Appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short hereinafter referred to as "the Act"); sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years with fine of '10,000/- under Section 7 of the Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of 15 days; rigorous imprisonment of 2" years with fine of '15,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and in default of payment of fine to undergo simple imprisonment of 15 days. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, facts involved in this case are that complainant Manmohan Bhalla, Sole Proprietor of M/s. Bhalla Constructions had executed certain works of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), under the supervision of appellant, who was working as Junior Engineer (J.E.) in the said department at the relevant time. Certain bills of the complainant were pending for payment. On 3rd January, 2003, complainant requested appellant to get his pending bills cleared at which appellant demanded bribe of '10,000/- from him. On 6th January, 2003, appellant telephoned the complainant and asked him to come with the money at his office in case he wanted to get his pending bills cleared. Since, the complainant was unwilling to pay bribe, he approached the office of Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and gave a written complaint in this regard. Inspector A.K. Pandey constituted a trap team comprising of two independent witnesses, namely, Shri. Virender Singh, who was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) with DDA and Shri. Mahadeva, an Officer of Corporation Bank, Inspector C.K. Sharma, Sub-Inspector R.C. Sharma and Sub-Inspector Prem Nath. Complainant was asked to contact appellant in order to fix the place of transaction. Accordingly, complainant contacted appellant on his mobile number from his mobile, in the presence of independent witness Mahadeva, wherein appellant confirmed the demand of bribe of '10,000/- for expediting the payment of bills. This conversation was recorded on a blank audio cassette in the office of CBI. Since appellant had asked the complainant to come within 10 minutes to deliver the bribe money which was not possible as formalities for laying trap proceedings could not have been completed within such a short period, therefore, complainant was asked to again contact appellant to seek some more time for payment of the bribe money. Accordingly, complainant again contacted Appellant and sought some time for payment of bribe money, at which appellant asked him to come on 7th January, 2003 at 10 AM in his office. Since the demand of bribe was confirmed from this conversation, FIR No. RC DA1-2003-A-0001 was registered by the CBI.

(3.) DURING the investigation, voice samples of appellant and the complainant were taken and sent to CFSL. As per the report of CFSL, these voices matched with the voices as recorded in the earlier conversation of the complainant and the appellant, which confirmed the demand of bribe. Samples of hand and jacket washes were also sent to CFSL for chemical examination. As per the report of CFSL, presence of sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder in the solution was noticed. Other documents were also collected during the investigation which showed that work order Nos. 264, 266 and 901 were executed by M/s. Bhalla Constructions under the supervision of appellant. Work done by M/s. Bhalla Constructions was recorded by the appellant in the measurement books. As regards the work order Nos. 264 and 266, final bills had been prepared and sent to Headquarters for release of payment. With regard to the work order No. 901 relating to the improvement of Gali No. 16 in Jahangirpuri for '3,78,943.10, 75% work was completed by the end of the December, 2002 and no running bill had been prepared by the appellant, who had supervised the whole work. Sanction for prosecution of the appellant was taken from the Competent Authority. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Special Judge, CBI, New Delhi.