RAM RATTAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment dated 21st February, 2002 whereby the appellant/accused was held guilty and convicted of offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, for short ,the Act') and the order dated 5th March, 2002 where under he was sentenced to undergo SI for two years with fine of '500/- under Section 7 and SI for three years with fine of '1,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. In default of payment of fines he was ordered to undergo SI of seven days and fifteen days, respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case as set up in the complaint against the appellant/accused in brief is that the complainant, Ashish Kumar and his brother, Prashant Kumar along with one Santosh Duggal and her minor daughter, Kavita Duggal were accused under Section 376/506/34 IPC vide FIR No.312/94 lodged at the instance of the one Rakesh Jain. The said case was pending before Addl. Sessions Judge, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi. Kavita being a minor, her case was being tried separately in the Children's Court. The accused was posted as a Public Prosecutor and was representing the State in the Children's Court in the case against Kavita. On 3rd June, 1996, the complainant, Ashish Kumar along with his brother, Prashant and Smt. Santosh Duggal are stated to have visited the Children's Court. There a case under Section 506/34 vide FIR No.191/96 was registered at Police Station Mukherjee Nagar against them at the instance of the appellant/accused, Ram Rattan, the Public Prosecutor. The complainant's case was that Ram Rattan had been asking for some money indirectly for doing favour to Kavita in the said case. On 5th July, 1996 he met the appellant/accused who demanded '5,000/- for doing favour to Kavita which would ultimately be of help to them also in their trial in the Sessions Court at Karkardooma. It is alleged that the accused assured them that he shall also save them from the proceedings relating to FIR No.191/96 IPC. On the same day, i.e. 5th July, 1996, the complainant paid '1,000/- to the accused and the balance of '4,000/- was to be paid to him in the Children's Court at 4.00 P.M. on 8th July, 1996. Since the complainant was not willing to pay any bribe, he made a complaint to CBI on 8th July, 1996, whereupon, this case was registered. CBI Inspector Rajesh Kumar organized a trap. One independent witness, Aneesh Kumar and two other members of the raiding party assembled in the room of CBI Inspector, Rajesh Kumar where the complainant produced 40 notes of '100/- denomination each. The numbers of these notes were taken down in the handing over memo. As per the procedure, the complainant was asked to hand over the money to the accused only on specific demand and the public witness, Aneesh Kumar was to act as a shadow witness. The trap party reached the Children's Court at about 3.45 P.M. The complainant and the shadow witness Aneesh were asked to contact the accused at 4:20 p.m.. After sometime, the complainant and PW4 Aneesh were seen coming out along with a person whose identity later came to be known as accused Ram Rattan. At about 4:25 p.m., PW4 Aneesh gave pre-appointed signal. The accused got suspicious and started running in the Juvenile Court Campus and while running, he took out the notes from his pocket and threw the same on the ground. However, he was overpowered and caught by Inspectors Rajesh Kumar and S.R. Singh. The notes were picked up by PW4 Aneesh. The same were compared by PW- 4 and Inspector Mallik with the numbers as noted in the handing over memo. The numbers were found to be tallying. The washes of both the hands of accused and that of right pocket of his pant and the handkerchief were taken separately which turned the sodium carbonate solution pink. The rest of the investigation was conducted. The CFSL opinion confirmed the presence of Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate in all the four washes. After completion of investigation and requisite sanction, the accused was challaned and sent to face prosecution. He was charged under the aforesaid Sections of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. denied the prosecution case. He stated that on 3rd June, 1996, the complainant with his brother and co-accused, Santosh had come to the Children's Court and threatened the prosecutrix Priya Jain, her mother and father. On this, the accused made a complaint to P.S. Mukherjee Nagar whereupon a case was registered against the complainant and his brother. The accused stated that thereafter the complainant lodged a complaint against him on 7th June, 1996 to the Commissioner of Police followed by another complaint with the Director of Prosecution followed by reminder dated 24th June, 1996. The accused stated that he submitted his reply to the Director, Prosecution on 7th July, 1996. He also stated that since no action was taken on the complaints against him, the complainant foisted a false case upon him on 8th July, 1996. The accused also examined one Mukesh as his only witness from the office of Chief Public Prosecutor to the effect that a complaint (Ex.PW-5/DA) against the accused/appellant Ram Rattan was received on 10th June, 1996 which was sent to the accused for his comments. He stated that another reminder (Ex.PW-5/DB) was also received on 28th June, 1996 which was also sent for his comments and that the comments of the accused (Ex.DW-1/A) were received on 7th July, 1996.

(3.) It is seen that the learned Special Judge has based his judgment relying upon the testimonies of the complainant, PW-5, public witness, Aneesh Kumar (PW4) and the IO Rajesh Kumar (PW10). He also sought corroboration from the CFSL report (PW2/A).