RAJINDER SINGH MEHTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant impugns the judgment dated 5th April, 2003 whereby he 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 "PC Act") and the order on sentence dated 6th February, 2013 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years with a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the PC Act. In default of payment of fine, the Appellant has been directed to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months on each count.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that neither demand nor acceptance has been proved by the prosecution. There are material contradictions in the statement of the Complainant and the shadow witness. The statement of PW6 the Complainant is full of improvements and contradictions. Minor variations are possible by lapse of time however, major contradictions from the previous statement are not permissible. Learned Trial Court erroneously held the said contradictions to be minor in nature. The conversation at the time of demand given in the statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. recorded after the trap and in the Court is contradictory. The Complainant's wife was running a PCO which was disconnected as the monthly bill was paid by a cheque which bounced and in a case where the cheque bounces, as per policy, cash payment is taken and in the light of payment by cash even if the Appellant stated to the Complainant "paise laye ho" the same would not amount to demand of illegal gratification. PW9 Sanjay Rana, the shadow witness was declared hostile. This witness admitted that he appeared in around 20 cases for CBI and thus was a stock witness for the CBI. PW9 does not allege either demand or acceptance. On the contradictory testimony of PW6 the Complainant, no conviction can be based without any corroboration. Admittedly the Appellant is handicapped and his one hand is not functional thus he could not have taken money from both the hands. The Appellant has been falsely implicated by planting the money on him. The claim of the Complainant that there were sufficient funds in his account was falsified by the dishonor of the cheque. Reliance is placed on Surajmal vs. State (Delhi Administration), 1979 4 SCC 725; Banarasi Dass vs. State of Haryana, 2010 4 SCC 450; Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI, 2011 178 DLT 529 and Roshan Lal Saini vs. CBI,2011 1 JCC(Del) 102. In the alternative, it is stated that the sentence awarded to the Appellant is very harsh and the same be reduced.

(3.) Learned Standing Counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the prosecution has proved demand, acceptance and recovery of money. Since the recovery has not been denied, the presumption under Section 20 is raised against the Appellant which onus he has failed to discharge. Hence no case for acquittal is made out and the appeal be dismissed.