NAWAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) A complaint to the Director (Vigilance) of Delhi Government was made by Sangeeta Uttam, daughter of Suresh Uttam, alleging therein that her father applied to the SDM, Kalkaji, in the year 2002, for issue of a caste certificate, vide diary No. 768/2002. She further alleged that the Enquiry Officer Nawab Singh verified her application and the documents annexed thereto with the original documents and found the same to be in order. He also made them bring the ration cards of two neighbours, noted their names on a paper and then demanded a sum of Rs 500/- as bribe for writing a report. They did not have Rs 500/- with them, but Nawab Singh took Rs 100/- from her aunt (wife of her paternal uncle) and also asked them to send her father to meet him in the office. Her paternal uncle then met Nawab Singh, who demanded a bribe of Rs 500/- from him, whereupon her father made a complaint in this regard to the SDM. However, on coming to know of the complaint, Nawab Singh gave an unfavourable report stating therein that the neighbours knew them only for three months and, therefore, caste certificate could not be issued. She also alleged that Nawab Singh had himself put the signature/thumb impression of the witnesses against their names. She also alleged in the complaint that one of the witnesses Smt. Usha was a literate person who puts her signature, whereas the other witness was illiterate. An FIR under Section 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 177/182/465/466 and 471 of IPC was registered against the appellant Nawab Singh on the basis of the above-referred complaint of Sangeeta Uttam and the case was handed over to Anti Corruption Branch of Delhi for investigation.

(2.) Vide impugned judgment dated 12.05.2010 and Order on Sentence dated 15.05.2010, the appellant was convicted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as well as under Sections 177/468/471 of IPC. Being aggrieved from his conviction and the sentence awarded to him, the appellant is before this Court by way of this appeal.

(3.) Smt. Bhagwati Devi, paternal aunt of the complainant, came in the witness box as PW-3 and stated that an official from SDM office came to their residence to make an enquiry, asked her to bring ration cards of two neighbours, noted down the particulars from the ration cards which he brought from the neighbours and refunded the same to her. She also provided the photocopies as required by him. He thereafter demanded Rs 500/- from her. When she explained her inability to pay that much amount, he demanded Rs 100/-, which she paid to him. He then asked her to send her husband to his office. She narrated these facts to his husband Naresh Uttam and her niece Sangeeta Uttam. The witness, however, did not identify the appellant Nawab Singh in the Court and expressed her inability to identify the culprit since the incident had become 4-5 years old, by the time she was examined in the Court. This witness, however, was not cross-examined by the appellant, despite opportunity given in this regard. Shri Naresh Uttam is the paternal uncle of the complainant. He also deposed that when he complained to the SDM, he called one clerk Mr R.K. Singh and asked him to look into the matter. Mr R.K. Singh asked him to come again after 15 days and told him, in the presence of the appellant Nawab Singh, that the fee of the appellant for issue of caste certificate was Rs 500/-, but the appellant did not object to the aforesaid statement of R.K. Singh by asking him as to why he was using his name in such a manner. During cross-examination of this witness, no suggestion was given to him that R.K. Singh had not told him in the presence of the appellant that his fee for issue of caste certificate was Rs 500/- and no objection to the said statement was raised by the appellant.