RAJ KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant was working as an Inspector in Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking, North Circle (in short "the DESU") when PW2 Sachidanand Sharma, the Complainant came to the Anti Corruption Branch on 12th August, 1993. He alleged that he had purchased a House No. 540/10, Nai Basti, Kishan Ganj in the name of his wife and had applied for electric connection. In this regard he contacted Raj Kishore, the Appellant, who was the Inspector of the area. However, Raj Kishore was putting off the matter for several days and thereafter he stated that he will not install the meter unless he was paid the bribe. On 11th August, 1993 Raj Kishore, the Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the Complainant. He installed the meter on that day and told that he would give the connection only after payment is made to him. The Complainant asked the Appellant to come to his house on the next day, that is, 12th August, 1993 at 12.00 noon when he would pay him Rs. 1,000/-. On the basis of this statement Ex. PW2/A, recorded in the presence of panch witness PW3 Lal Chand, the proceedings were initiated. Rs. 1,000/-, that is, ten currency notes of Rs.100/- were noted down and treated with phenolphthalein powder. After the pre-trap proceedings, the raiding party went to the house of the Complainant and parked at the distance. At about 12.00 noon two labourer from DESU came and told that they would give the connection and demanded money. On this the Complainant stated that he would pay the money to the Inspector only. Though the two labourer insisted that the money should be paid to them however, the Complainant refused and thus they became angry and left the place. After about 15 minutes the Appellant came on the scooter and immediately demanded the money. The Complainant took out the money and gave it to the Appellant. The Appellant took the money in his left hand. The panch witness PW3 gave the signal on which PW6 the Trap Laying Officer apprehended him. Subsequently the numbers of the currency notes Ex. P1 to P10 were tallied, memo prepared in this regard and the left hand wash of the solution of the Appellant was taken which turned pink.

(2.) This version of the Complainant was supported by PW3 Lal Chand, the panch witness and in view of the evidence on record the learned Trial Court convicted the Appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the PC Act") and directed him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 11/2 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3,000/- on each count and in default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for three months.

(3.) Learned counsel for the Appellant before this Court has addressed that his contention before the learned Trial Court was never that the money was not recovered. His contention was that PW2, the Complainant was a property broker and since the Appellant had to do emergency duty he asked him to look for a house on rent nearby. Thus the Complainant got him a house, the rent for which was Rs.1,200/- and the security was Rs. 800. PW2/Complainant demanded Rs.1,000/- as brokerage charges. The Appellant paid Rs. 3,000/- but immediately in view of a message received from the village he was required to go back and thus he did not want the house on rent. The Appellant demanded his money back and it was this money which the Complainant was returning to the Appellant. Though the Appellant proved by the documents on record the defence of the Appellant and also examined the defence witnesses however, the learned Trial Court ignored the defence of the Appellant and convicted the Appellant as aforesaid.