DEVINDER SINGH Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24th April 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge, (CBI) in CC No. 221 of 2007 holding the Appellant guilty of the offence under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( 'PC Act ') and the order on sentence dated 28th April 2009 sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment ( 'RI ') for one year with fine of Rs.5,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment ( 'SI ') for 5 months for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and to undergo RI for two years with fine of Rs.10,000 and in default to undergo SI for ten months for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act with both sentences being directed to run concurrently. The complaint to the CBI

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Mr. Yogender Prasad Gupta lodged a complaint (Ex.PW -6/A) with the Central Bureau of Investigation ( 'CBI ') on 25th January 2003 stating that he was a Consultant and that on 23rd January 2003, at about 10.30 am, two police officials from the MIG Flats, Police Post Titarpur, Police Station Rajouri Garden came to his office at Shop No. 10, First Floor, Gurudwara Singh Sabha, Subhash Nagar and informed him that the Chowki Incharge, Sub Inspector Devinder Singh (Appellant) had called him immediately at the police post. Mr. Gupta is stated to have told the police officials that he had some urgent work and that he would appear before the Appellant in the evening. Mr. Gupta in his complaint stated that when he reached the police post at 4 pm, the Duty Officer asked him to wait. At around 6 pm, the Appellant arrived and called him to his office. The Appellant informed Mr. Gupta that a complaint had been lodged against Mr. Gupta by one Ms. Sheetal Sharma accusing him of cheating and that the Appellant would have to register a case against Mr. Gupta on the basis of the said complaint. Mr. Gupta in his complaint further disclosed that the Appellant told him that if he wanted to avoid registration of the case, Mr. Gupta should bring Rs.5,000. The Appellant further asked Mr. Gupta to inform the Appellant on his mobile as to when and where the money would be paid. The Appellant gave Mr. Gupta his mobile number on a slip which was brought by Mr. Gupta to the CBI office. Mr. Gupta in his complaint further stated that he received a call in his office at around 4 pm on 24th January 2003 for not calling the Appellant on his phone and was threatened that if the money did not reach the Appellant by the next date, Mr. Gupta would be arrested. Mr. Gupta is stated to have informed the Appellant that he could arrange only Rs.3,000. Since Mr. Gupta did not wish to pay the bribe amount, he approached the CBI with a written complaint. Pre -raid proceedings

(3.) ON the basis of the written complaint, an FIR (Ex. PW -6/B) was registered. Mr. Gupta produced six government currency ( 'GC ') notes of Rs.500 each and their numbers were noted down by Mr. Minocha in the handing over memo (Ex.PW -1/B). A memo was also drawn up regarding the telephone conversation (Ex.PW -1/C). The GC notes provided by Mr. Guptawere treated with phenolphthalein powder and a demonstration was given showing its reaction to sodium carbonate solution. The treated GC notes were kept in the left side shirt pocket of Mr. Gupta and he was directed to hand over the money to the Appellant on his specific demand or on his direction to some other person and not otherwise. PW 5 was directed to act as a shadow witness and to give signal by scratching his head by both his hands after the giving of bribe was completed. A micro cassette recorder (MCR) was given to Mr. Gupta for the purpose of recording his conversation with the Appellant at the spot. The raid proceedings