S.K.SINGHAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By the present appeal the Appellant challenges the judgment dated 25th July, 2002 convicting the Appellant for offences 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 the order on sentence dated 26th July, 2002 directing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of four years and a fine of Rs. 500/- each under Sections 7 and 13 (2) of the 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 prosecution has failed to prove the motive as the transfer order was issued under the orders of the President of India and the Appellant had no role to play therein. He could not have stopped the Complainant from joining the Post and Telegraph Department. Two traps were laid, first on 27th June, 1994 wherein admittedly no demand was made by the Appellant and second on 28th June, 1994 wherein also neither the demand nor the acceptance nor recovery has been proved. The alleged audio cassette prepared in the evening of 27th June, 1994 is of no relevance as the same was not sent for the auditory comparison of the Appellant by the expert. The telephone number on which the said audio cassette was prepared was not proved to be of the Appellant. The alleged tape recorded conversation was sealed on 27th June, 1994 however, the same was unauthorisedly reopened on 16th September, 1994 for the alleged transcription when no public witness was present and thus the chances of tempering in the recording in the audio cassette cannot be ruled out. There is no evidence on record to show as to what happened to Rs. 500/- given by the Complainant treated for trap on 27th June, 1994. There is material improvement in the examination-in-chief of the Complainant from the statement recorded as the words "paise dijiye? were not recorded in Ex. PW1/D1. The Complainant in his examination-in-chief states that Inspector Tokas searched the Appellant and recovered Rs. 1,800/- tainted GC notes from the pant of the Appellant whereas in his cross-examination he says that PW3 P.D. Chamoli recovered the money. No search of the officers was offered before the alleged recovery. Further the Complainant states that he did not know who put the hand in the internal lining of the pant of the Appellant. Though it is stated that PW3 P.D. Chamoli signed the internal lining of the pocket of the pant but when the pant was produced in the Court signatures of PW3 were not there and only signatures of Shri B.K. Sinha PW4, the independent witness were present. Further PW1 states that contents of P54 and P55 were not pink. PW3 P.D. Chamoli and PW4 B.K. Sinha are stock witnesses as they have appeared in another trap case. The Appellant has placed on record Ex. TX to prove the same and no reliance can be placed on their testimony as witnesses. There is non-application of mind in passing the sanction order as the entire evidence was not placed before the sanctioning authority as stated by DW1 R.K. Singh. PW5 Bhom Prakash Sharma, public witness has not supported the prosecution case. PW7 Inspector Tokas stated that all the proceedings were carried out by Inspector Ved Prakash however, Inspector Ved Prakash was not examined as witness.

(3.) Learned counsel for the CBI on the other hand contends that the demand, recovery and acceptance of money by the Appellant have been proved on record. The judgment of the learned Trial Court is a speaking order. The sanction has been properly granted and in view of Section 20 of the PC Act presumption is raised against the Appellant which he has failed to discharge in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Hence the appeal be dismissed.