DHARMAMVEER SINGH Vs. CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The petitioner along with Surender Singh was charged with offence u/s 120B read with section 7 and section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (PC Act) by the Court of Sessions Judge vide order dated 19.5.2004. The petitioner has come up in revision against this order.

(2.) The complainant a work contractor of the Municipal Corporation Delhi (MCD) submitted bills of payment which were lying with Surender Singh, Section Officer. Surender Singh is the principal accused in this case who demanded bribe for himself as well as for the petitioner, Deputy Director of Horticulture (DDH) for clearing those bills. The complaint is that when the complainant went to the petitioner and told him that Surender Singh had demanded a bribe on his behalf also, the petitioner stated that the complainant should go by the advise of Surender Singh because he was the person to pass the bills as he was the SO. Eventually the case RCNo.2(A)/2003/CBI/ACU-II was registered and a trap was laid. 80 notes of Rs.500/- denomination amounting to Rs.40,000/- was produced by the complainant which were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the same notes were given to Surinder Singh at the gate of the MCD Building at Rajpur Road. A shadow witness heard the conversation of demand and payment. Surinder Singh was caught red- handed. The investigation proceeded in the usual way of obtaining the hand-wash of Surinder Singh to establish the chemical test and the notes had been received by him. Investigation revealed that the petitioner did not take any action on the reports submitted by Surinder Singh in respect of the progress in the work contract awarded to the complainant although in matters relating to other matters action had been taken by him. After apprehension of Surinder Singh, the petitioner recorded four different notes on the measurement book of Surinder Singh to the effect that work was not completed by the complainant. The notes had been appended after the book had been closed on 21.4.2003 and thus it revealed the attempt on the part of the petitioner to escape his liability. The investigation inter alia recovered a slip written by Surinder Singh on which he had indicated the share of DD(H) to the extent of Rs.75,000/-.

(3.) The petitioner raises the following pleas in support of his demand for discharge