PURAN PRASAD Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal the Appellant lays a challenge to the judgment dated 2 nd January, 2003 convicting him 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 3 rd January, 2003 whereby he has been directed 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 case of default of payment of fine to undergo further Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three months on each count.

(2.) Learned counsel for the Appellant contends that the material witnesses, that is, the Complainant, the shadow witness and the recovery witness have turned hostile and the learned Trial Court has passed the judgment on the part testimony of the hostile witnesses. Reliance is placed on Sat Paul vs. Delhi Administration, 1976 1 SCC 727. The allegations against the Appellant are that he demanded a sum of Rs. 15,000/- to complete the bail bond of the complainant pursuant to grant of anticipatory bail and since he could not arrange the money, the demand of bribe amount was reduced to Rs.5,000/-. The bail bond had actually been executed on 25th August, 1999. Thus the allegation of demand of bribe for completing the bail bond on 26th August, 1999 was wholly unfounded. PW2 the Complainant, and PW6 his brother are involved in a number of cases and the Appellant had in fact gone to recover Rs.90,000/- which they had snatched from the victim in case FIR No. 194/1996 under Sections 307/379/34 IPC and the Arms Act which the Appellant was investigating. There are contradictions in the testimony of the witnesses as to the time when they left the CBI office.

(3.) Pw1, the recovery witness stated that the money was recovered from the envelope which is not the case of the other witnesses. There are glaring contradictions in the testimony of PW1 and PW2. The seals handed over to PW13 were not produced in the Court. Neither PW1 nor PW2 stated about the demand made at the time of acceptance. PW1 neither witnessed demand nor acceptance. PW3, the shadow witness who was given the responsibility to accompany PW2 has neither witnessed the demand nor acceptance as he left the room prior thereto. PW4 the SHO of the Police Station where the Appellant was working at the relevant time has clearly deposed that he directed the Appellant to recover the stolen amount and weapons. PW10 Inspector Vivek Dhir took over the investigation on 2nd September, 1999 and thus it is not known who investigated the case from 26th August, 1999 to 2nd September, 1999. The role of PW7, the trap laying officer Inspector Surender Malik was over on registration of FIR and thereafter he could not have continued with the investigation upto 2nd September, 1999. This action of PW7 creates a doubt. Reliance is placed on Megha Singh vs. State of Haryana, 1996 11 SCC 709 wherein it was held that the practice of investigation by the very police officer who lodged the complaint should not be resorted to. By merely proving the recovery no conviction of the Appellant could have been based. Reliance is placed on State of Maharasthra vs. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede, 2009 15 SCC 200.