ROOP CHAND Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) BY the present appeal, the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment passed by the Ld. Special Judge, convicting him for offence punishable under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(in short ,,P.C. Act) and sentence of Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) BRIEFLY, the prosecution case is that the Appellant Roop Singh offered to the Complainant Lt. Col. B.K. Singh, a public servant who was posted as Dy. Independent Recruitment Officer with IRO, Delhi Cantt. an illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/- per candidate for recruitment of certain candidates in the Indian Army. The Complainant refused the offer. However, the Appellant threatened him and went away saying that he would come back after a few days and he should reconsider his proposal. On 15th January, 1990, the Appellant gave a telephonic call to the Complainant and stated that he would visit him on the 17th January, 1990 with a list of candidates to be inducted in the Army. On the Complainant disconnecting the phone, the Appellant visited the residence of the Complainant in the evening and again persuaded him to agree to his request and gave a chit Ex.PW6/A detailing the names of the candidates to be inducted in the Indian Army and threatened him to accede to his request. He also said that the Complainant can be given more gratification per candidate. The Complainant reported the matter to his commanding officer and thereafter a written complaint Ex.PW1/A was given in the office of the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Anti-Corruption Branch, As the Appellant proposed to visit the Complainant on 2nd New Delhi. February, 1990 at around 7:30 p.m. along with the bribe amount, PW 6 D.C. Sorari, DSP, CBI organized a raid by joining Inspector S.C. Yadav and Inspector S.K. Saxena from CBI and two panch witnesses namely Sh. M.M. Bhatia and Sh. Tajender Singh Walia requisitioned from the Oriental Bank of Commerce, Jhandewalan Extension, New Delhi. During the pre-raid formalities which were conducted in the afternoon of 1st February, 1990, a micro-cassette recorder alongwith one micro-cassette was arranged. The audio cassette was checked by the witnesses and found to be blank. After loading the recorder with the blank audio cassette, the same was given to the Complainant and he was directed to record the said conversation which might On 2nd February, 1990, all take place between him and the Appellant. members of the trap party reached the residence of the Complainant at around 5:30 am. Both the panch witnesses were asked to conceal themselves behind the curtain between the drawing-room and the lobby and the other members of the trap party concealed themselves in the bedroom of the children. The Appellant arrived at around 8:10 a.m. He was taken to the drawing-room by the Complainant and they had a conversation. The Appellant offered the bribe by saying "SAHEB PAISE LE AAYA HOON LEKIN KAM HAIN BAKI KAAM HONE PAR DE DONGA KYONKI CALL LETTER ABHI TAK NAHI PAHUNCHE HAI". The Appellant took out the money and offered the same to the Complainant. When the accused started counting the same, the pre-arranged signal was raised. On hearing the signal, the members of the trap party rushed into the drawing-room and apprehended the accused along with the bribe amount of Rs.11,950. Thus, on the aforesaid allegations, a case FIR was registered under Section 12 of the P.C. Act and after completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. During the trial, the Complainant Lt. Col. B.K. Singh and panch witness M.M. Bhatia, expired and thus, the two material witnesses on whose testimony the entire prosecution case hinges are PW 1 T.S. Ahuwalia, the panch witness and PW 6 D.S. Sorari, the Investigating Officer. PW 4 M.C. Joshi, DSP to whom subsequent investigation was transferred is also a relevant witness.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. There is no doubt that PW1 T.S. Walia, the panch witness has fully supported the prosecution case. According to him, he not only met the Complainant on 1st February, 1990 when the Complainant came to the office of CBI but he also fully satisfied himself about the contents of the complaint. Moreover, on 2nd February, 1990 when the trap was laid, PW1 was hiding himself behind the curtain. He witnessed and heard the entire conversation between the Appellant and the Complainant and was thus a witness to every transaction on the date of incident. He is an eye-witness to the occurrence and in the absence of any motive to falsely implicate the Appellant, his testimony cannot be brushed aside lightly. This witness has proved the complaint of the Complainant Ex. PW1/A. He has also deposed that he heard the Appellant telling Lt. Col. B.K. Singh, the Complainant "SAHEB PAISE LE AAYA HOON LEKIN KAM HAIN BAKI KAAM HONE PAR DE DONGA KYONKI CALL LETTER ABHI TAK NAHI PAHUNCHE HAI". It is thereafter on a signal being raised by the Complainant that the Appellant was apprehended and money was recovered from his hand. The fact that the money was Rs.50/- short of Rs.12,000/- would not make a material difference so as to cast a serious doubt on the prosecution case. The testimony of this witness stands duly corroborated by the testimony of PW6, Sh. D.C. Sorari, Dy. S.P., CBI, the trap officer. This witness has also corroborated the version of the Complainant, the pre-trap evidence and he is the one who apprehended the Appellant in the drawing-room of the Complainant. The fact that the Appellant was sitting with the Complainant in his drawing-room and some currency notes along with some papers were lying on the table has also been proved by the testimony of this witness. The articles from the spot were seized which have been duly exhibited, which also include a list of candidates and some application forms etc. I find no merit in the contention raised by the learned counsel for the Appellant that there are material contradictions in the testimonies of PW1 and PW6 with regard to the placement of tape-recorder or that the bribe money was recovered from the hand or from the table, as with the passage of time, minor variations in the testimony of the witnesses are bound to occur and such minor discrepancies cannot throw out the entire prosecution case. The evidence of these two witnesses is sufficient to prove the charge for offence under Section 12 of the P.C. Act against the Appellant.