SHANTI LAL MEENA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge in this appeal is to a judgment dated 29th March 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 194 of 2001 convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ( 'PC Act ') and an order on sentence dated 31st March 2008 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment ( 'RI ') for two years with a fine of Rs.15,000 and in default to undergo simple imprisonment ( 'SI ') for 15 days and RI for two years with a fine of Rs.15,000 and in default to undergo SI for 15 days for the offence under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act with both sentences directed to run concurrently. The Complaint

(2.) THE case of the prosecution is that Shashi Bhushan Singh (PW -5) was running the Gold Cable Network at Dabri, New Delhi. On 7th January 2001 there was a scuffle between his brother Brij Bhushan Singh and one Sandeep Goswami. FIR No. 98 of 2001 was registered at police station Dabri on that day. On 11th January 2001, the Appellant who was the Investigating Officer ( 'IO ') of the said case visited the residence of PW -5 and arrested his nephew Dani. According to PW -5 on 12th January 2001, the Appellant contacted PW -5 over the telephone and demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000 for releasing his nephew and closing the case. He is stated to have told PW -5 over the telephone to come to Janak Cinema with the bribe amount, failing which, he would be challaned. At the request of PW -5, the Appellant is stated to have agreed to wait till 13th January 2001. Pre -raid proceedings

(3.) AT around 12.40 pm on 13th January 2001 the CBI team reached the residence of PW -5 at Mahavir Enclave, New Delhi. PW -5 is stated to have received a telephone call from the Appellant in the presence of PW -2 asking him to come to Janak Cinema at around 1.30 pm. The Appellant is stated to have come there at 1.30 pm and then left the spot in the car of PW -5. PW -2 accompanied them in the same car. The three of them had lunch in a restaurant and thereafter the Appellant is stated to have demanded the bribe of Rs.12,000 from PW -5 in the presence of PW -2. According to the prosecution, the Appellant accepted the bribe money in his right hand and kept it in his right pant pocket.