(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as 'the Act' only). The appellant was convicted by learned Spl. Judge vide orders dated 31.10.2001 and was sentenced vide orders dated 1.11.2001. Under Section 7 of the Act the appellant was sentenced to undergo SI for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 5000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further SI for one month. Under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the act he was ordered to undergo SI for two years and six months with a fine of Rs. 10,000/ -. In default of payment of fine he was ordered to undergo further SI for two months.
(2.) THE facts relevant for the disposal of this appeal, briefly stated, are that in the year 1996 the appellant was working as Local Health Authority in the Department of Prevention of Food Adulteration, Government of NCT of Delhi. On 29.9.1995 a sample of Urad Dal was lifted by the Food Inspector from one Sumit Kumar Jain who was funning a Kiryana shop at Yusuf Sarai, New Delhi. On analysis the Public Analyst Delhi found the sample conforming to the standard but PFA Department sent the second sample to Government Laboratory, Bangalore for analysis where it was found not conforming to the standard. According to the prosecution, on 30.6.1996 complainant contacted the appellant on telephone for obtaining a copy of the report of Delhi Laboratory but the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 3000/ - for supplying a copy thereof and told him that he would be coming to his shop on 1.7.1996 for delivering the copy on receipt of money. The complainant Shri Shekhar Chand Jain who is the father of Shri Sumat Kumar Jain was not willing to pay any money to the appellant and as such, he reported the matter to CBI. On 1.7.1996, a raiding party was organised under Shri Azad Singh, Inspector. He joined two independent witnesses Shri Banwari Lal and Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Singh. Six currency notes of Rs. 500/ - each, which were brought by the complainant, were treated by phenolphthalain powder in the office of CBI and were kept in the pocket of the complainant who was directed to hand over those currency notes to the appellant on his demand of bribe. Shri Kamleshwar Prasad Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness and over hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and see the transaction taking place between them. He was also directed to give a signal to the raiding party by scratching his head as soon as the bribe was given to the appellant -accused.
(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. he denied the prosecution case and stated that he had been falsely implicated on account of the fact that he was instrumental in sending the second sample to Bangalore for analysis and as such, the complainant bore a grudge against him. According to him the complainant's son Shri S.K. Jain had got the sample from Delhi Laboratory passed but the appellant was suspicious about the report and as such he had submitted a note for sending me second sample to another public analyst. He denied that he had talked to complainant on the morning of 30.6.1996 on telephone and demanded Rs. 3000/ - for supplying a copy of the report of the Public Analysis, Delhi or had gone to the shop of the complainant and demanded a bribe of Rs. 5000/ -. According to him on 30.6.1996 he was not in Delhi even and was attending a family function at a Village m District Meerut, U.P. He denied that on 30.6.1996 he had told PW -4 that he would come again next day and would not go empty handed. He denied that he told him that he would be coming by about 6.00 PM on 1.7.1996. He pleaded that on 1.7.1996 at about 4.00 PM Ms. Usha Kiran, Food Inspector returned the file to him for service of report upon the accused Shri S.K. Jam and as such he went to his shop for delivering a copy of the report as required under Section 9(a) of the PFA Act and the rules there under. He denied that after delivering documents he demanded bribe and stated that the currency notes were forcibly put into his pocket upon which he made hue and cry and protested but he was implicated on false allegations of demanding and accepting bribe. According to him on 1.7.1996 he was discharging his statutory duties under Section 9 of PFA Act and the Rules thereunder by serving a copy of the report of the public analyst, Bangalore upon Shri S.K. Jain. According to him neither had he demanded nor accepted nor recovery of currency notes was made from him and the case had been foisted upon him on account of the grudge of the complainant.