SURESH CHAND JOSHI Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Whether the Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment ? No 2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? No 3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in the Digest ? RAJIV SHAKDHER, J 1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Code?) is directed against the judgment dated 07.01.2003 passed by Shri M.L. Sahni, Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CC No.136/1999.

(2.) By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the P.C. Act?). In respect of offences under section 7 of the P.C. Act, the appellant has been sentenced to simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo a further period of incarceration (i.e., simple imprisonment) for a further period of two months. In so far as the appellant?s conviction under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the P.C Act is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of three years in addition to a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-

(3.) Thereafter, steps were taken to obtain sanction of the competent authority i.e., Sh. S.P. Jakhanwal (PW-7), who was the Vice-Chairman of the DDA, at the relevant point in time. Based on the material placed before Sh. S.P. Jakhanwal (PW-7), which included the FIR, the copies of memos, statements of witnesses and investigation report he accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant which was forwarded alongwith a letter dated 03.08.1992 under the signatures of Sh. U.S. Rawat, Addl. Director (Vigilance), DDA. The sanction order being Ex. PW7/A. 3.1 Resultantly, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The trial court after taking cognizance of the same, summoned the appellant and framed charges against the appellant in respect of the offences referred to above. 3.2 After completion of the trial, the trial court vide the impugned judgment has convicted the appellant. In convicting the appellant, the trial court has relied upon, essentially, amongst others, the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9), forensic evidence in the form of the report (PW2/A) and the statutory presumption, which is available where acceptance of bribe money is established under section 20 of the P.C. Act.