MAHIPAL SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 03.04.2008 delivered by Sh. AS Yadav, learned Special Judge, Delhi in Corruption Case no. 30/03, by which the appellant was convicted for the offence punishable under sections (u/s) 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('PC Act') punishable under Section 13(2) PC Act. By the order on sentence dated 04.04.2008, the appellant was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (RI) for a period of three years along with a fine of Rs.10,000/-, and in default of payment of the fine - Simple Imprisonment (SI) for two months u/s 7 of PC Act. For offences punishable under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, the appellant has been sentenced to undergo RI for three years along with a fine of Rs 10,000/-, and in default of payment of the said fine further SI for two months. Both the sentences were to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution is that- the complainant (PW-6), Mohd. Zakir, purchased a room at the address- 618, Gali Telian, Ganj Meer Khan, behind Delite Cinema, Delhi for a sum of Rs. 1,25,000/- from his uncle, Abdul Gaffar, vide an agreement to sell. However, the complainant's uncle did not execute the documents. On 28.10.2002, Zayeed, son of the complainant's uncle Abdul Gaffar along with his friends assaulted the complainant, and attempted to take the agreement to sell back from him. The Police was informed of the said incident by the brother-in-law of the complainant (wherein complainant was assaulted), and the accused, ASI Mahipal Singh, reached the spot of the incident. The complainant was, thereafter, taken to LNJP Hospital for examination.

(3.) The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant was beaten up by the accused in the Police Station, and was asked to compromise the matter with his uncle, Abdul Gaffar. The accused took Rs. 500/- from the complainant. Thereafter, the accused called the complainant a number of times to ask him regarding the status of the compromise. On 01.11.2002, the complainant (PW-6) went to PS Chandni Mahal, where he met the accused. The accused demanded Rs. 5,000/- from the complainant (PW-6) for getting the matter settled. When the complainant showed his inability to pay the money as he is poor, the accused told the complainant to pay Rs. 2,000/- by the end of the day, and Rs. 3,000/- after the compromise came about. As the complainant was not willing to pay the aforesaid bribe, he went to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) office where his complaint (Ex. PW6/A) was recorded in presence of the panch witness, Satpal Rohilla (PW-7).