STATE DELHI ADMINISTRATION Vs. KHEM CHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Shri H. P. Bagchi, Additional Sessions Judge in his capacity as Special Judge, Delhi, tried the respondent Khem Chand, then serving as Sub-Inspector in the Police Department, under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 Indian Penal Code . By a judgment dated 30th October 1976, he dismissed tils prosecution case and acquitted the accused of the charge.

(2.) Feeling aggrieved of this order, Delhi Administration has filed this acquittal appeal. The details about the prosecution case are given in Ext. Public Witness l/A, statement made by on: Pishori Lal Public Witness I before Shri Krishan Gopal Public Witness 9, Inspector Anti Corruption Branch. In this statement he said that since 9;h August 1974 he along with one Baljit Singh Khatri and his younger brother Sukhbir Singh Khatri reside in quarter No. F-123. DDA Flats, New Ranjit Nagar, Delhi, that this quarter, in fact, is allotted to one Dina Nath and he took it on rent from Din a Nath through Balbir Singh a driver in DTC that they pay a rent of Rs. 75 per month jointly to. the said Dina Nath. Further said that on 22nd August 1975 the said Balbir Singh driver and his sons accompanied by some more persons entered their quarter, assaulted them and threw out of their belongings with a view to compel them to vacate the house. They had sustained injuries and the matter was reported to police station Patel Nagar where a case under section 452 Indian Penal Code was registered and accused was asked to investigate the same. On 28th August 1978 the relatives of Balbir Singh driver again came to their house and called out Baljit Singh Khatri and threatened him to withdraw the case whereupon Baijit Singh also lodged a report at police station Patel Nagar on the same night but. no action had been taken in respect thereof, that on 19th September 1979 between 7 and 7.30 PM the complainant Pishori Lal together with Sukhbir Singh Khatri had gone to the police station Patel Nagar to enquire about the progress of their case as also the report lodged by Baijit Singh. While Sukhbir Singh remained out, he went inside the police station and met S. I , Khem Chand accused. On enquiry about the case he was told by the accused that there was no force in their cases and he was trying to get the same approved for sending the same to the court. He is further stated to have told him that in case he greases his palm he would champion his cause and get the case filed in court, and would also ensure that action is taken on the report of Baljit Singh. On further enquiry he was told by the accused Khem Chand to arrange for a sum of Rs.100 and wine and remain at his residence on the next evening i.e. 20th September where the accused will visit to collect it.

(3.) By virtue of Ext. Public Witness 1/B Krishan Gcpal Public Witness 9, Inspector. made a record of the fact that on 20th September 1975, at about 12.15 PM the complainant came to his office and made the statement, Ext. Public Witness I[A, which after it was read over and explained to the complainant was signed by Public Witness I and was also attested by him. Sukhbir Singh, who accompanied the complainant, did not make any statement in writing though he supported the complainant. Public Witness 9 then goes on to state that these two persons were made to sit in the office and the witnesses were sent for. At about 3.30 PM Jagbir Singh Goel Public Witness 7 and Ved Parkash Public Witness 2 came to the office and in their prepence the statement was read over to the complainant who admitted it to be correct. The complainant then produced a hundred rupee rots bearing No. AA/21 024752. Thereafter ail of them were told about the significance of the application of phenol phthalein powder to the currency note and a demonstration was also given as to how the hands and clothes of a person, after getting into contact with phenol phthalein powder. If washed in sodium carbonate solution would convert the solution into pink colour; that the note was accordingly dusted with powder. Shri Goel Public Witness 7 was made to touch it and he was made to wa.h his hands in sodium carbonate, solution to demonstrate the conversion of solution into pink. colour. Thereafter, the note was again dusted with powder and was returned to the complainant for offering to the accused as bribe. I he complainant was also told that at the time of offering this bribe he should talk to the accused in the manner as to make it possible for the witnesses to understand that the note, in fact, is offered as a bribe. The witnesses were also asked to hear and see what transpires between the parties. The witnesses were informed about the details of the raid. Before proceeding to the place of occurrence, Public Witness 7 Jagbir Singh Goel and Public Witness 7 Krishan Gopal washed their bands with soap.