R K P NISHAD Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant has been convicted by learned Special Judge in a corruption case number 52/94 vide judgment dated 18th July, 2002 and sentenced vide order dated 22 nd July, 2002 as under:

(2.) By virtue of present appeal, the Appellant/ convict has assailed the judgment and order of conviction and sentence. The prosecution case as set out in brief is that the Appellant was employed as Producer, Grade-II, in Doordarshan Kendra, Directorate of Doordarshan. Neeraj Kumar (PW1) had approached him for telecasting his drama Dahej in Krishi Darshan programme of Doordarshan on TV. The drama was approved by the Department, but the Appellant was allegedly shifting the dates of rehearsal for some reason or the other. Since the Appellant was demanding bribe money for doing favour for telecasting the said drama and the complainant PW1 not being willing to pay, filed a complaint Ex.PW1/A against the Appellant with CBI mentioning these allegations. It was specifically alleged in the complaint that on 21 st September 1990 when the complainant met the accused for approval of his drama, the latter told him that his drama would be approved only if he was paid 1800/- which the drama team were to get from Doordarshan, and another sum of 6500/-. It was alleged by the complainant that a sum of 1900/- was lying with him and another sum of 5500/- with Ms. Vimal Bhatnagar known as Mataji and in this way 7400/- were supposed to be paid to the Appellant on 22 nd September 1999 for approval /shooting of the drama and that the Appellant wanted that this money should be paid to him at the residence of Mataji(PW5 Mrs. Vimal Bhatnagar). Mataji was also one of the artists of the said drama Dahej . As per the complaint, the complainant came to the office of CBI on 21 st September 1990 and talked to the Appellant on phone from there. A meeting was fixed at the residence of PW5 where rehearsal of the drama was to be watched by the Appellant and he was also to be paid the bribe money as demanded. This telephonic conversation between the complainant and the Appellant was recorded by CBI officials and transcript thereof was also prepared. From the office of CBI, the complainant also talked to Mataji on telephone and told her to keep the amount of 5500/- ready for paying the same to the Appellant as bribe as per the talks with him. This conversation was also recorded by CBI officials and its transcript prepared. CBI Inspector A.G.L Kaul (PW12) verified the reputation of the Appellant and after confirming his reputation to be a corrupt official, decided to lay a trap. A raiding party consisting of PW12, two independent witnesses Ms.Poonam (PW3), Mr.S.D. Roy (PW10), complainant and other officials of CBI was organized. The complainant, as directed, produced 16 currency notes of denomination of 100/- each and 6 currency notes of 50/- each before Inspector A.G.L. Kaul who noted down the numbers of those notes in the handing over memo (Ex.PW3/C). The usual pre-trap proceedings comprised of treating these currency notes with phenolphthalein powder, giving of demonstration to the complainant and the witnesses as to how this powder will react with the solution of sodium carbonate, giving of directions to the complainant to give money to the Appellant on a specific demand and advising of the shadow witness Poonam to give a predetermined signal etc. PW3 Poonam was also instructed to remain close to the complainant to hear the conversation and watch the transaction. PW3 Poonam was also carrying a cassette tape recorder in her purse for recording the conversation. As per pre-decided programme, the complainant and PW3 Poonam went to the house of PW5 Mataji where other members of the raiding party also arrived and took their positions. The Appellant came to the house of PW5 and on his demand, he was paid 7400/- by the complainant which included 22 phenolphthalein power treated currency notes in possession of the complainant and 5500/- lying with PW5 Mataji. PW3 gave pre-arranged signal to the CBI officials, whereupon they came in and challenged the Appellant. The Appellant became perplexed and confused and on the pointing out of PW3 Poonam, the amount of 7400/-, taken as bribe by the Appellant, was recovered from the briefcase of the Appellant. The numbers of treated currency notes Ex.P1 to P22 totaling 1900/- tallied with the numbers of already noted down currency notes vide pre-raid memo Ex.PW3/C. Both the hands of the Appellant and the polythene bag from which the notes were recovered were dipped separately in the sodium carbonate solution. The solutions turned pink which confirmed that the Appellant had handled the tainted money. Later two washes of the hands and one wash of the pocket pant were got analyzed from CFSL vide report Ex.PW6/A. All the three solutions gave positive tests for presence of phenolphthalein in the solution of sodium carbonate thereby further confirming the handling of currency notes by the Appellant. After obtaining sanction under Section 19 of the Act for the prosecution of the Appellant, he was charge-sheeted. In the Court, charges were framed against the Appellant under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.

(3.) The prosecution examined 13 witnesses which included complainant (PW1), panch witnesses Poonam (PW3) and Mr.Roy (PW10) and the raiding officer AGL Kaul (PW12).