JAGDISH CHANDRA MAKHIJA Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated 05.04.2002 and Order dated 08.04.2002, whereby the appellant/accused was convicted by learned Special Judge under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter, referred to as the Act?) and was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment of five years for each offence. He was also ordered to pay a fine of 5,000/- on each count. In case of default of payment of fine, he was to undergo further imprisonment of six months each. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case as unfolded at the trial is that the accused Jagdish Chandra Makhija was working as Assistant Director in Delhi Zone, Enforcement Directorate, office at Lok Nayak Bhawan, New Delhi. He was allegedly handling the case registered under FERA against Rattan Kumar Modi (Complainant) (PW2). A search was carried out at the residence of the complainant on 14.09.1988 by some officers of Directorate of Enforcement who were joined midway in the search by Mr. A.P.Pandey, Deputy Director and the accused (Assistant Director). Allegedly, there was no recovery of incriminating documents/articles from the residence of the complainant who was arrested without assigning any reason or justification by the Enforcement Officers, and thereafter remanded to judicial custody for 14 days to be bailed out by the court on 26.09.1988.

(3.) The complainant PW2 lodged a complaint with SP CBI on 17.10.1988 (vide Ex. PW2/A). In the complaint, the complainant alleged that on 14.10.1988, the accused contacted him over telephone at his residence and desired to meet him at the junction of Shahjahan Road and Humayun Road, near Modern School at 6:15pm on 15.10.1988 assuring him that he would settle his case. The complainant went to the pre-appointed place and picked the accused in his car and took him to his residence. The complainant alleged that he could smell that the accused was likely to ask for bribe for settling the case and therefore, he arranged for tape recording the conversation without the notice of the accused. The complainant submitted the duly tape recorded conversation between him and the accused to the SP, CBI, in which the accused had allegedly demanded 50,000/-, out of which 25,000/- was to be paid on 17.10.88, the date on which the complaint was lodged with CBI. The accused allegedly expressed desire to be picked up by the complainant at 7:00pm from Humayun Road to the residence of the complainant, where he was to receive the first installment of the bribe amount. The accused told the complainant that this bribe amount would include the share of Mr. A P Pandey also, and that rest of the bribe amount is to be paid after the case under FERA against him is closed.