RAM NARESH PANDEY Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 15th March, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 19th March, 2005 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year each and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/- on each count and in default of payment of fine to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that though the complaint stated about demand at Radhu Place, however the raid was conducted at Preet Vihar Office. Though PW3 prepared the memo Ex.PW3/A, however there is no corresponding entry in the register No.19. As per PW8 the money was demanded by Mr. R.B. Singh and not the Appellant because Mr. R.B. Singh was the person competent to sanction the loop connection sought by the complainant. The Appellant is only a Telephone Operator and had no role to play in the sanction of the loop connection. The complainant has not been able to prove the initial demand. He has been confronted on all material aspects. The trap laying officer PW9 Inspector Abhey Ram admitted that he did not verify the complaint that the bribe money was to be given at 2.00 PM at Radhu Place. PW7 the complainant admitted that he had not met the Appellant prior to the raid. Thus there was no question of initial demand. Once the demand was by R.B. Singh who was at Radhu Place, it is not known how the raid was conducted at Preet Vihar office. The evidence of hand-wash cannot be used as the bottles were not deposited in malkhana. The link evidence has not been proved. Further when the bottles were produced before the learned Trial Court, they did not have pink colour solution. There is no material on record as to who took the solution to the CFSL and brought back as the same was not deposited in the malkhana.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that PW1 and PW2 have proved that the Appellant was working at Preet vihar Office. Though bottles were not deposited with Moharar malkhana PW3, however PW11 S.K. Sharma clearly stated that he handed over Ex. LH1 and P1 along with samples seals to ACP A.K. Singh who kept the same in his almirah in lock and key. Further PW4 A.K. Singh stated that S.K. Sharma the investigating officer deposited the wash with him which he kept in safe custody. It is further deposed by PW11 that he took the samples from PW4 A.K. Singh and deposited the same in the CFSL. Thus the safe custody of the samples and link evidence has been duly proved. PW9 the trap laying officer duly proved the recovery from the Appellant and in view thereof presumption is raised against the Appellant which he has failed to discharge. Reliance is placed on State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G.K. Ghosh, 1984 1 SCC 254 and Hari Kishan Vs. State, 2011 10 AD(Del) 553 to contend that though shadow witness has turned hostile, the conviction can be safely based on the testimony of the complainant and the trap laying officer.