JAGDISH SINGH Vs. C.B.I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant impugnes the judgment dated 21st July, 2003 whereby he has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 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 22nd July, 2003 whereby he has been directed to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- for offence under Section 7 PC Act and simple imprisonment for a period of one year with a fine of Rs. 1000/- under Section 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) of PC Act.

(2.) LEARNED counsel for the Appellant contends that the only evidence of initial demand is of PW1, who has made substantial improvements in his statement before the Court from the earlier complaint and thus his evidence cannot be relied upon. In the complaint it is stated that he received the call from the Appellant in July, 1994 whereas before the Court he stated that he received the call 5-10 days before making the complaint on 20th October, 1994. The complainant PW1 has been cross-examined by the learned APP and there is no statement qua the demand and acceptance at the time of bribe. The version of the witnesses is not consistent either for pre-trap or for trap proceedings. PW1 has been specifically suggested by learned APP that the complainant deposed falsely on 30th July, 1997 to help the Appellant which suggestion is denied by the complainant. Though the trap was laid at the time when the public dealing was over, however still the witnesses say that there were lot of people. The visitor pass by virtue of which the complainant went to the office has not been proved in evidence. Thus, there is no proof of entry into the office. The Paan Shop owner who was a material witness has not been examined. PW6 Babu Ram Gupta, the shadow witness has also turned hostile and has been cross-examined by the learned APP. Even in the cross-examination by the learned APP he says that he does not remember who recovered the notes and who took the hand-washes. Even PW5 N.K. Sen the recovery witness has not supported the prosecution case. In view of the material contradictions, the appeal be allowed and the Appellant be acquitted.

(3.) HEARD learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the prosecution case as per the complainant PW1 Jasbir Singh Ahuja is that he received a call from the Appellant from the Accounts Branch of Darya Ganj Exchange in connection with non-payment of the telephone bill. He visited the telephone exchange Darya Ganj and met the Appellant who told that the telephone bill had not been paid, to which complainant stated that he had already made up to date payments. The Appellant told him that one bill amounting to Rs. 1254/- was still pending and he should pay the same. The complainant went downstairs to collect the duplicate bill from where he was informed that no such bill was pending. When the complainant came back to the Appellant and told him that no such bill was pending, he insisted on the pendency of the bill and prepared a duplicate bill in his own hand-writing and asked him to deposit the same at the cash-counter. The bill was exhibited as Ex.PW1/A. After paying the bill he went upstairs back to the Appellant. On the receipt it was noted that the telephone would not be disconnected for non-payment. 5-6 days, later the complainant checked the previous records and came across receipt of payment of Rs. 1254/- in respect of the same period for which the duplicate bill was got prepared. The complainant took the receipt to Darya Ganj Exchange and met the Appellant and showed him the payment of the bill of Rs. 1254/-. The complainant submitted a written application for the refund of the excess payment at the receipt counter Ex.PW1/B. The application was duly signed by the Appellant which signatures have been identified by PW8 S.N. Soni, the Accounts officer of MTNL. The Appellant told that it would take 3-4 months to process the application. 3-4 months later when the complainant again contacted the Appellant, the Appellant told him that for getting the refund he will have to do some ,,Sewa Pani. Thereafter the Appellant demanded Rs. 300/- for getting the refund. The complainant told him that he was not having any money on that day and would pay the money within 2-4 days. Since the complainant did not want to pay the bribe amount he went to lodge a complaint Ex.PW1/C. Pursuant to the complaint, pre-trap proceedings were conducted and a trap was laid on the next day. As the complainant did not give the complete details of the pre-trap proceedings, learned APP cross- examined him with the permission of the Court and thereafter he narrated the trap proceedings.