V.K.VERMA Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant assails the judgment dated 9th April, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short "PC Act") and the order on sentence dated 10th April, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5000/- each and in case of default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for four months on both the counts.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the alleged demand was for Rs. 650/- for passing three bills out of which two bills had already been cleared and only the third bill of Rs. 1000/- remained. Thus there was no reason that the Appellant could have demanded the money after clearing the bills. The actual dispute was whether the measurement from outer side or inner side should be considered which made a difference of 20 to 25% in the payment. The complainant admitted that the final payment was made as per the internal measurement though the Executive Engineer and Superintendent Engineer were ready to give payments as per external measurement. Despite the fact that all senior officers wanted that the measurement should be from the outer side, the Appellant insisted that the measurements should be from inner side and prepared the bill accordingly on 22nd September, 1984 and approved the same for Rs. 1714/- after deducting security amount of Rs. 904/-. The complainant accepted the inner measurement though under protest on 29th October, 1984 and on the date of alleged trap the file was pending with the Executive Engineer, Vidyut Bhawan which was seized from him. Thus when the alleged demand was made the Petitioner's role had already been over and he was in no capacity to demand the illegal gratification. The version of PW3 that the hand-wash solution of both the hands turned pink is not supported by PW4 the shadow witness who stated that only right hand-wash solution turned pink and the left hand-wash did not change the colour. The defence of the Appellant that this was the money given by the Appellant to the complainant to buy the tyre and tube for his scooter which was being returned, has not been considered by the learned Trial Court. DW1 Santosh Kumar Tehlarmanai proved the defence of the Appellant but of no avail. In view of the material contradictions and no motive being proved the Appellant is entitled to be acquitted.

(3.) Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the defence of the Appellant was suggested to the complainant, however he denied the same. The demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Mere inconsistencies in the prosecution case do not affect the otherwise credible and cogent testimony of the witnesses.