NIRANJAN SINGH Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant impugns the judgment dated 21st January, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevent of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the PC Act") and order on sentence dated 22nd January, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for four years with a fine of Rs.500/- each under Sections 7 and 13(2) of PC Act and in default of payment of fine to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for three months on each count.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the learned Trial Court erroneously relied upon the tape recorded conversation to corroborate the version of the Complainant in the absence of scientific analysis of the tape. The voice sample of the Appellant was neither taken nor sent for voice spectrography nor did the expert opine that there was no tempering/ interpolation in the cassette. The Appellant in fact became victim of the inflated ego of Mr. Salim, General Secretary of Employees Association, who asked the Appellant to do the work, however, since the Appellant did the work according to rules and taking his own time, the same was not liked by him. Reliance is placed on Subhash Chand Chauhan v. C.B.I., 2005 117 DLT 187. Though at the time of alleged initial demand, the Complainant was accompanied by two witnesses namely Nizamuddin and Yusuf and their statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, they were not examined in the Court as witnesses. Hence adverse inference is required to be drawn against the prosecution on account of withholding of material witnesses. There are material contradictions in the testimony of witnesses. Though the Complainant and all witnesses stated that the pocket wash solution also turned pink, however, when it was sent for examination the same was found to be colourless. 10 days period is not sufficient to fade the pink colour of the solution. Thus, the learned Trial Court erroneously held that colour faded due to passage of time. The Appellant rendered his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. which was probable. However, the same has been totally ignored by the learned Trial Court.

(3.) Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the evidence of the Complainant and other witnesses cannot be washed away merely because two independent witnesses could not be examined. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Since the Appellant accepted the tainted GC notes, a presumption is required to be raised under Section 20 of the PC Act. Hence there is no merit in the appeal and the same be dismissed.