B. TIWARI Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant B. Tiwari, S/o Sh. P.S. Tiwari vide the present appeal assails the impugned judgment dtd. 19/5/2001 of the Special Judge, THC, Delhi in RC No.40(A)/93-DLI whereby the appellant herein, posted as Assistant Manager of the Delhi State Industry Development Corporation and co-accused Mr. R.K. Pandey, a private person were both held guilty of the commission of the offences punishable under Ss. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, r/w Ss. 7, 13 (2), 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for having entered into a criminal conspiracy to receive illegal gratification for showing a favour to Mr. Satish Kumar (the complainant) in pursuance of which conspiracy, the appellant herein being a public servant abused his official position and demanded a sum of Rs.2,000.00 from the complainant by directing him to hand over the bribe money to the accused no.2 i.e. Mr. R.K. Pandey who accordingly accepted the same other than legal remuneration on 11/6/1993.

(2.) As per the prosecution version, the complainant Mr. Satish Kumar had visited the Khichripur Office of DSIDC for taking possession of a working shed No.40 allotted to him by the DSIDC in Khichripur, for which on 8/6/1993, the accused no.1 i.e. the appellant herein had as per the complaint made a demand for illegal gratification and agreed to accept a sum of Rs.2,000.00 from the complainant to be paid on 11/6/1993 for giving possession of the said shed.

(3.) The appellant also assails the impugned order on sentence dtd. 19/5/2001 whereby the appellant herein, the public servant was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two years for the offence punishable under Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was directed to pay a fine of Rs.5,000.00 and in default to undergo Simple Imprisonment for two (2) months qua the offence punishable under Sec. 13(2) r/w 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988, the appellant herein was sentenced to undergo Simple Imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000.00 and in default of the payment of the said fine, to further undergo Simple Imprisonment for one month. The appellant was also sentenced to undergo SI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000.00 or in default to further undergo SI for 15 days for the offence punishable under Sec. 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, with it having been directed vide the impugned order on sentence that all substantive sentences would run concurrently and he would also be entitled to set off for the period of detention he has undergone during the investigation or trial of the case.