P.P. SINGH Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Dr.P.P.Singh (Prem Pal Singh-the appellant) challenges the legality and correctness of a judgment dated 06.05.2006 in R.C.No.79(A)/96/CBI/ACB/N.Delhi, CC No.133/01 of learned Special Judge, Delhi by which he was held guilty under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short PC Act). By an order on sentence dated 08.05.2006, he was awarded rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 5,000/- under Section 7 and rigorous imprisonment for five years with fine Rs. 7,000/- under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of PC Act. Both the substantive sentences were to operate concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, as projected in the charge-sheet, is that on 02.11.1996 S.P.Singh lodged a complaint with CBI against Dr.P.P.Singh for demanding Rs. 1,000/- as illegal gratification for issuing essentiality certificate (in short : EC) and to pay it at his residence on 03.11.1996. The complainant in the complaint (Ex.PW-6/A) averred that his son Master Vishal, aged 3 years, was under treatment of the appellant at Safdarjung hospital. In January, 1996, he had demanded and obtained Rs. 20,000/- from him on the assurance of complete treatment of his son. After accepting Rs. 20,000/-, he postponed the operation on one pretext or the other. On 02.05.1996, at his instance, he admitted Vishal and his wife Anju Singh in Madhu Maternity Centre, Greater Kailash where on 03.05.1996 the appellant grafted bone in Vishal's leg after taking it from the leg of his wife. Rs. 4,000/- more were taken by the appellant for the said operation. Further case of the prosecution is that after registration of the case on 02.11.1996, a raiding team was constituted and two independent public witnesses Prem Kumar and Krishan Kumar were associated on 03.11.1996. The complainant-S.P.Singh (PW-6) was introduced to the members of the trap team and independent witnesses. The complainant handed over Rs. 1,000/- in the form of Government Currency (G.C.) notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Prem Kumar was asked to act as shadow witness and to remain close to the complainant to overhear the conversation between him and the accused. Automatic receiver/recorder, earphone and audio cassette were handed over to Krishan Kumar with the direction to hear the conversation. Prem Kumar, panch witness, was directed to give signal by touching his head by both hands after the transaction of bribe was over. The complainant was directed to hand over the tainted money to the accused on his specific demand and not otherwise. Handing over memo (Ex.PW-2/A) recording pre-trap proceedings was prepared. Further case of the prosecution is that on 03.11.1996 at about 9.25 a.m. the trap team including the independent witnesses reached near the residence of the accused and took suitable positions. Prem Kumar and complainant- S.P.Singh went inside the house to contact the accused. At about 09.50 a.m. on getting the pre-appointed signal from shadow witness- Prem Kumar, as per plan, the trap party rushed towards the house of the accused who was found sitting on a bed in the entrance room. Insp.Anil Sharma and Yashvir Singh challenged him (the appellant) about demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant. On instructions (of Insp. Yashbir Singh), PW-5 (Krishan Kumar) recovered tainted money of Rs. 1,000/- from the right side pocket of the kurta of the accused. Detailed post-trap proceedings (Ex.PW-2/C) were conducted at the spot. The accused was apprehended and arrested. Statements of witnesses conversant with the facts were recorded. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the accused; he was duly charged and brought to trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. In 313 statement, the accused pleaded false implication; denied his complicity in the crime; and examined DW-1 D.P.Singh, Principal, Government Boys Senior Secondary School, Mayur Vihar in defence. On appreciating the evidence and after considering the rival contentions of the parties, the trial court by the impugned judgment convicted the appellant for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved and unsatisfied, the appellant has preferred the appeal.

(3.) Appellant's Senior counsel strenuously urged that the trial court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective. The appellant had no motive to demand and accept the bribe of Rs. 1,000/- from the complainant on 2/3.11.1996 as EC had already been issued by him to the complainant and he (complainant) had obtained reimbursement of expenses incurred on the treatment of his son and wife. There was no occasion for the complainant to demand EC for the second time and it was not at all required to claim medical reimbursement. Senior counsel further urged that sanction under Section 19 of the POC Act was not valid and it was granted in a mechanical manner without application of mind. PW-1 (M.Kannan), Deputy Secretary, was not the competent authority to grant sanction (Ex.PW1/A) as he was not empowered to remove Dr.Prem Pal Singh from service. He further contended that entire proceedings were manipulated in connivance with the complainant. The prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt that the tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the kurta of the accused as kurta wash was not produced before the court. The prosecution witnesses have given inconsistent version as to from where the recovery was effected. PW-5 (Krishan Kumar) in the cross-examination disclosed that Rs. 1,000/- were recovered during house search. The cassette played before the trial court was not clear and its contents were not audible. It did not present true picture and its authenticity is doubtful. It was further pointed out that the complainant had got an animus against the appellant as he was not satisfied with the treatment given to Vishal. He was aggrieved for the expenses incurred by him and wanted return of Rs. 20,000/- from the complainant. Refusal to part with Rs. 20,000/- as demanded by him was the real cause to falsely foist a case against him. PW-6 (S.P.Singh) admitted in the examination-in-chief that the motive to lodge complaint was unsuccessful operation. DW-1 (D.P.Singh) on the basis of the documents categorically proved that the complainant had already been reimbursed of the payment for the treatment of his wife and son for the period May, 1996 to July, 1996 vide application dated 31.07.1996. PW-3 (Prem Kumar) completely denied if any transaction of bribe took place in his presence. The prosecution was unable to establish beyond doubt that any bribe amount was paid on specific demand by the appellant. The serious infirmities from which the prosecution evidence suffered were over looked by the trial court. Reliance was placed on G.S.Mathataoo vs. CBI,2012 3 JCC 1655; State of Karnataka vs. Ameerjan, 2007 11 SCC 273; State vs. Surya Sankaram Karri, 2006 7 SCC 172; State vs. C. Nagrajaswamy, 2005 8 SCC 370; Panalal Domodar vs. State, 1979 AIR(SC) 1191; Hakumat Rai vs. State, 1982 22 DLT 370; Pyare Lal vs. State, 2008 149 DLT 425; Prem Raj Meena vs. CBI, 2011 1 Crimes(Del) 730; Udai Singh vs. State,2011 182 LDT 284; Prem Singh Yadav vs. CBI, 2011 178 DLT 529; Nepal Singh Rawal vs. CBI, 2011 185 DLT 479; L.K.Jain vs. State, 2005 124 DLT 371; Sunil Kr. Sharma vs. State, 2007 139 DLT 407; Dev Raj Arora vs. State, 2012 2 JCC 1045 and Kanwar Singh Kakkar vs. State, 2011 3 JCC 1917.