PUSHPAL CHANDER BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 30th January, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 31st January, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 8000/- on each count. He was further directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 5 months on each count in default of payment of fine.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the story of the prosecution is without any basis. The case of the prosecution is that the Appellant threatened for cancellation of license of the complainant in case his demand of money was not fulfilled. This demand was made on 11th December, 1996 whereas the Appellant had already surrendered his license for fair price shop in the year 1994. Thus the alleged motive for demand of bribe by the Appellant was false and baseless. The most material witness i.e. the raid officer was not examined. Neither demand nor acceptance has been proved. The bribe money was allegedly recovered from the dash board. The shadow witness PW10 S. Natrajan stated that he was not present near the complainant and the Appellant when the demand and acceptance was made because he was stopped by the Appellant and complainant from coming near to them. It is not known as to how then PW10 gave the pre-arranged signal. PW10 the shadow witness is otherwise a stock witness as he himself admitted that he accompanied the raid parties on 8 to 10 occasions. The version of PW8 and PW10 as to where the post-trap proceedings were conducted is contrary. PW8 stated that the hand-wash and the dash board wash of the car were taken at the spot near the shop whereas PW10 the shadow witness stated that these proceedings took place in the office of the anti-corruption branch. The investigation was conducted by an officer of the level of Inspector which is not permissible. The defence of the Appellant was that a civil suit was pending against Rattan Lal DW1 the friend of complainant whose cheque was allegedly transacted in the account of the complainant. Since an out of Court settlement was arrived at between the parties, the Appellant had gone to recover the installment of Rs. 10,000/- from DW1 who stated that the same be taken from PW8. The Appellant has produced Rattan Lal who has admitted all these facts in his defence besides DW2 who has also proved the defence of the Appellant. In view of the fact that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the defence put forward by the Appellant has been proved even beyond preponderance of probability, the Appellant be acquitted of the charges framed. Reliance is placed on V. Venkata Subbarao Vs. State, 2006 13 SCC 305 and Pyare Lal Vs. State, 2008 149 DLT 425.

(3.) Learned APP for the State on the other hand contends that PW8 the complainant has proved the case of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. The version of PW8 is further corroborated by PW9 Kuldeep Kumar his neighbor from whom the complainant and Appellant had gone to demand Rs. 5000/- as the complainant did not have the full amount of Rs. 10,000/-. PW10 the shadow witness has clarified the entire incident. He states that initially he was prevented from accompanying them, however the actual demand and acceptance took place when he was present and on acceptance PW10 the shadow witness gave the pre-arranged signal. PW2 has clearly stated that the cheque no. 905908 i.e. the cheque in question amounting to Rs. 1,29,729/- was referred to the Appellant who was the Branch Manager and in this regard he has exhibited the relevant photocopy of the cheque along with the endorsement. The version of DW2 relates to another account number which could be another Rattan Lal whose parentage etc., is not mentioned. In view of the clear testimony of PW8 the complainant and PW10 the shadow witness, demand, acceptance and recovery have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The raid officer could not be examined as he had gone out of the country and thus he was not available for examination before the Court. In the absence of raid officer the second I.O. PW14 who was present at the time of raid was duly examined and had proved the facts. The defence of the Appellant has not been proved as he has not exhibited the proceedings in the civil suit. Further there is no evidence on record to show that the parties had arrived at a settlement. Even otherwise it was not the job of the Branch Manager to go to the shop of an individual to collect the money even if a settlement had been arrived at. The hand-wash and the dash board wash have been proved beyond reasonable doubt. There being no merit in the appeal the same be dismissed.