K.K. VERMA Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the CBI against the appellant in a nutshell is as follows: Inspector Sunil Dutt of CBI was entrusted with the verification of a complaint alleging purchase of sub -standard product by the Punjab Regional Office of FCI. The appellant K.K. Verma who was working as the Assistant Manager (Vigilance), had conducted field verification with respect to the said complaint and had also met Inspector Sunil Dutt in this regard, in CBI office at Jam Nagar House. On 12.9.2001, the appellant met him outside his office and enquired about the verification which he was making. When the complainant(Inspector Sunil Dutt) told him that the verification was in its last stage, the appellant allegedly asked him to prepare his recommendation in such a manner that the matter gets referred back to the Vigilance Department of FCI, and offered to pay Rs.1.00 lakh to him for this purpose. The appellant also made a telephone call to the complainant on 13.9.2001, whereupon he (the complainant) reported the matter to his superior officers. A trap was then laid to catch the appellant red -handed while offering bribe to the complainant and two public officers were arranged. One of them was to act as a shadow witness and remain with the complainant. A digital recorder was also procured for the purpose. As per the case set out by CBI one of the panch witnesses sat in Room No.36. When the appellant came to the said office he was introduced to the other panch witness Ram Niwas as the person assisting the complainant. The draft report was shown to the appellant, who suggested a few changes. Thereafter the appellant took out a typed -written paper from his pocket and gave it to the complainant, asking him to incorporate the recommendation typed on that paper in his report. He then took out a white envelope and offered the same to the complainant who accepted the envelope, which was found to contain another brown envelope with currency notes. The complainant kept the envelope on the table whereas the panch witness Ram Niwas went out. The other members of the team then entered the room and seized the currency notes as well as typed report which the appellant had brought with him.

(2.) VIDE impugned judgement dated 3.7.2013, the appellant was convicted under Section 7 read with Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the PC Act ') and vide Order on Sentence dated 8.7.2009, was sentenced to undergo RI for two (2) years and to pay fine of Rs.50,000/ - or in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for three (3) months. Being aggrieved from his conviction and sentence awarded to him, the appellant has filed this appeal. The sentence awarded to the appellant has already been suspended by this Court vide order dated 6.9.2013.

(3.) THE application has been strongly opposed by the learned counsel for the CBI who submits that the appellant having been convicted under the provisions of the PC Act, no ground for suspending the conviction is made out.