SATISH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant is aggrieved by the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 27.01.2006 and 28.01.2006 respectively wherein he was convicted under Section 13(2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'said Act'). He was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 18 months and to pay a fine of Rs.3,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for 3 months for the offence under Section 13(2) of the said Act; for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act, he was sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.2,000/ - and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for two months.

(2.) THE version of the prosecution is that a complaint was made by Babu Lal (PW -7) which was to the effect that on 10.02.1997 the appellant who was working as a Superintendent in the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU) at Shalimar Bagh had demanded bribe of Rs.400/ - from the complainant for the purpose of passing his electricity bill. The complainant in his complaint had explained that the electricity bill of their factory used to be deposited under a Court order for which they had to get endorsement of the bill from the concerned Superintendent. On 10.02.1997, he had visited the DESU office at Shalimar Bagh wherein the appellant, working in his capacity as Superintendent, had agreed to get the bill of the complainant deposited (for the month of January, 1997) only if a bribe of Rs.400/ - was paid to him. This bill was for Rs.22,350/ -. Not willing to pay this amount as bribe, a complaint was lodged by the complainant on the following day.

(3.) THE prosecution in support of its case had examined nine witnesses; the complainant Babu Lal was examined as PW -7. The shadow witness who was present along with PW -7 at the time of raid was D.N. Mehto examined as PW -6. The Raid Officer ACP Ramesh Singh was examined as PW -8, and the Investigating Officer Inspector Bir Singh was examined as PW -9. The hand washes of the appellant and his left pant pocket wash (from where the money was allegedly recovered) after sealing had been deposited in the malkhana and the entries in the register No. 19 was proved through HC Sewak Singh (PW -3); the CFSL, Chandigarh had opined that these hand washes had tested positive for phenolphthalein, thus advancing the version of the prosecution that this tainted money had been touched by the appellant.