HEM CHANDER Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 19th December, 2002 convicting the Appellant for offences punishable under Sections 7/ 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 21st December, 2002 directing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- for offences under Section 7 PC Act and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. There appears to be a typographical error in the impugned order of sentence dated 21st December, 2002 whereby instead of Hem Chander convict Raj Kishore has been mentioned.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that in the entire prosecution case there is no evidence to prove demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the Appellant. Further there is no recovery of the bribe money from the Appellant. The complainant himself stated different plot numbers and finally stated that the money was demanded for illegal construction of plot No. 128, however plot no. 128 was already a constructed building. The alleged recovery was effected from the drawer of the table and thus cannot be said to be a recovery from the Appellant. Even the panch witness has not supported the prosecution case. Merely by proving the hand wash solutions, the prosecution cannot be said to have proved beyond reasonable doubt the commission of offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act by the Appellant. Reliance is placed on Banarasi Dass vs. State of Haryana, 2010 4 SCC 450.

(3.) Learned APP on the other hand contends that the recovery of the tainted money has been proved which is duly corroborated by the report of the hand-wash solution, and in view of the law laid down by the Supreme Court in Hazari Lal Vs. State, 1980 2 SCC 390; State of U.P. Vs. Zakaullah, 1998 AIR(SC) 1474 and State vs. G. Premraj, 2010 1 SCC 398, there is no illegality in the impugned judgment and the appeal be dismissed.