CHANDERKESH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 17.3.2006 and 18.3.2006 wherein the appellant Chanderkesh has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to the as the said Act); for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months; for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act he has been sentenced to undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.

(2.) Record shows that a complaint had been filed by Madhu (PW-4) which was to the effect that the appellant who was working as a record keeper in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.250/- from the complainant for supplying her a certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to her plot i.e. plot No.81A, measuring 150 sq. yards, Khasra No.339, Village Bindarpur, Block-V, Sector-D, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. This complaint was made by PW-4 before the Anti Corruption Branch on 28.4.1993; the complaint had noted that on 27.4.1993 i.e. one day prior to her complaint at about 2.00 p.m. she had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate; she had contacted the dealing clerk known as Chander Kesh, who is the present appellant; he was working as a record keeper. She wanted a certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to her plot; the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.250/- (sewa-paani); Rs.100/- was paid on 27.4.1993 as a advance and balance of Rs.150/- had been agreed to be paid on the following day i.e.28.4.1993. Since she did not wish to pay the bribe amount this complaint was filed. In court she (PW-4) however did not support the prosecution version.

(3.) The pre-raid proceedings were drawn up. In the pre-raid proceedings the investigating officer S.P.Singh (PW-7) had called the panchwitness S.S.Rawat (PW-10) to join the proceedings; it was explained to the panchwitness that after the bribe money had been paid by the complainant to the accused an appointed signal had to be given by him pursuant to which raiding party would reach the spot.