KIRAN PAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the Appellant lays a challenge to the impugned judgment whereby the Appellant has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988(in short the PC Act) and awarded a sentence of imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of '2000/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one month for offence punishable under Section 7. For the offence punishable under Section 13(i)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act, the Appellant has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of one year and a fine of '5000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for two months.

(2.) Briefly, the prosecution case is that the Complainant lodged a complaint Ex.PW2/A with the CBI alleging that the Appellant who was working as a supervisor with the Delhi Development Authority(DDA) and posted at Sriram Colony, demanded '500/- as bribe for permitting him to fill up the low lying area near his house. On the complaint of Prem Singh, PW5 a trap was laid by Inspector S.K. Bhati who associated Inspector S.R. Singh, PW10 and other staff members, and two panch witnesses Sanjay Khandpal and D.Sen Gupta both Junior Assistants in NDMC. Pursuant to the trap, 5 currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each were treated with the chemical. The complainant PW 5 along with PW 4 Sanjay Khandpal on the demand of the Appellant paid him the money, wheareafter he was trapped . His left hand wash and wash of the jacket's pocket gave pink colour and the Appellant was thus arrested. After investigation, a charge-sheet was filed along with the sanction accorded by PW 3, Director(Personnel), DDA. Shri S.K. Bhati, trap laying Officer expired before his testimony could be recorded. Thus the testimony of Shri S.R. Singh, Inspector as the trap officer assisting Sh. S.K. Bhati was recorded. After recording of the prosecution evidence, statement of the Appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and defence evidence, the Appellant was convicted as above.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant challenging the conviction states that no valid sanction has been granted in the present case as PW3 in her cross-examination has stated that she merely signed the sanction order without going through any papers. Thus, the sanction is invalid in view of the non-application of mind. The Appellant never challenged the competency of PW3 to grant the sanction however, the learned trial court did not consider the issue of application of mind while grant of sanction but only considered the competency of PW3 to grant the sanction. Relying on Mohd. Iqbal Ahmed vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, 1979 AIR(SC) 677, it is contended that it is incumbent on the prosecution to prove that a valid sanction has been granted by the sanctioning authority after it was satisfied that a case of sanction has been made out constituting the offence. Reliance is placed on State vs. Ravinder Singh, 1995 CrLJ 3428 to contend that the sanction for prosecution is a pre-requisite for taking cognizance of offence and in the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution, the accused cannot be prosecuted. Referring to Deewan Chand vs. State, 1982 CrLJ 720 it is contended that while sanctioning, the facts constituting the offence should be before the sanctioning authority and a sanction accorded in a mechanical manner cannot be consider as a valid and legal sanction. It is next contended by the learned counsel for the Appellant that the entire case of the prosecution is based on leading questions put by the learned counsel for the CBI to the prosecution witnesses which were not legally permissible. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses, neither any demand nor acceptance has been proved. There are material discrepancies in the statement of the witness PW5 the alleged complainant, who has contradicted himself on all material aspects. There are contradictions on the fact as to where the complaint was written and to whom the same was given. PW2 Rajbir Singh has deposed that the complaint Ex.PW2/A was written by him in his shop, whereas PW4 has stated that the complaint was written in the CBI office by Rajbir Singh PW5, the alleged complainant stated that he got the complaint written by Rajbir Singh in lal mandir situated near CRPF Camp in Siri Ram Colony. He further stated that Rajbir never went alongwith him to the CBI Office. PW8, panch witness stated that the complaint was written in the CBI office. The version of the complainant PW5 as regards the demand and acceptance has been contradicted by him in his cross-examination and also by the other prosecution witnesses and hence no demand and acceptance has been proved. Though, the prosecution case is that PW5 Prem Singh is the complainant but the Appellant has successfully shown from the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses that, in fact, Rajbir was the Complainant and the Appellant has been falsely implicated at the instance of Rajbir against whom the Appellant had already registered complaints. The Appellant gave a cogent explanation of false implication in his statement under Section 313 Cr. P.C. along with reply R-1 and has also examined defence witnesses. However, the learned trial court did not consider them. The incriminating evidence against the Appellant has been brought on record by answers to leading questions put by the learned APP. Relying on Varkey Joseph vs. State of Kerala, 1993 AIR(SC) 1892, it is contended that leading questions can be permitted only to draw the attention of the witness on questions which cannot otherwise be called to the matter under enquiry, trial or investigation. In the absence of demand or acceptance being proved, the legal presumption under Section 20(1) of the PC Act cannot be raised. The recovery of the tainted money from the Appellant is also doubtful in view of the contradictory versions of the witnesses. Even post-trap proceedings are doubtful as to where they were carried out as some of the witnesses have stated that the same was carried out on the spot and the others stating it to be carried out at the CBI Office. It is thus prayed that the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed against him.