RAM KARAN PATHAK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 30.01.2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in C.C. No. 28/2002, arising out of FIR No. 2/2001, convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act) and the order on sentence dated 31.08.2008, whereby-for the offence under Section 7, PC Act, the appellant/ accused was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months, and, for the offence under Section 13(2), PC Act, the appellant had further been sentenced to undergo RI for 3 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and in default to undergo simple imprisonment (SI) for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as noticed by the trial court is that the complainant V.K. Diwan constructed shops on government land in property no. 19/596 J.J. Colony Kalkaji, New Delhi, for which he received a notice from the Estate Officer (Slum) VIII Slum & J.J. Department of MCD, Room No. H-15, Vikas Kutir ITO, and, he was required to appear before the Estate Officer on 19.12.2000. The complainant (PW-7) appeared before the Estate Officer on 19.12.2000. The Estate officer asked the complainant (PW-7) whether he wants to get evicted or wants to pay damages. He agreed to pay the damages. Thereafter the Estate Officer handed over the file to the accused/ appellant R.K. Pathak, who was working as a reader under him for further action. The appellant informed the complainant (PW-7) that it is within his hand to assess damages, depending upon the extent to which his 'sewa pani' is done. He stated that he will assess damages around 20-30 thousand, otherwise he will assess the same at around Rs. 1 lac. Thereupon, the appellant asked the complainant (PW-7) to come again, and when the complainant (PW-7) met the appellant, he demanded Rs. 50,000/-, and finally agreed to accept Rs. 30,000/-. On 29.12.2000, the appellant took Rs. 5,000/- as bribe from the complainant (PW-7) and also Rs. 500/- for peon Kamal and Jaswant. He further asked the complainant (PW-7) to pay the balance amount before 09.01.2001, as the matter was listed before the Estate Officer for 09.01.2001. The complainant (PW-7) informed the appellant that he cannot pay the amount in one go, to which the appellant asked him to pay atleast Rs. 10,000/- on 05.01.2001. The complainant (PW-7) told the appellant that on 05.01.2001, he would pay Rs. 5,000/- and the rest of the amount will be paid before 09.01.2001, to which the appellant agreed.

(3.) The complainant (PW-7) was against giving of bribe. Consequently, he went to Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and gave his written complaint (Ex. PW-7/A) to the raid officer (R.O.) Inspector Naginder Singh (PW-8) in the presence of the panch witness Arvind Kumar (PW-6). Thereafter, the complainant (PW-7) brought five GC notes of Rs. 100/- each and 9 GC notes of Rs. 500/- each, and handed over the same to the R.O. (PW-8). The R.O. (PW-8) recorded the serial numbers of those GC notes in his pre-raid report (Ex. PW-7/A-1). The R.O. (PW-8) gave a demonstration to the complainant (PW-7) and the panch witness (PW-6) by applying phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes and asking the panch witness (PW-6) to touch them with his hand. Thereafter, the hand wash was taken with sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink. The solution was thrown away. The treated GC notes were given to the complainant (PW-7), who kept the same in the left pocket of his coat. Thereafter, all of them washed their hands. Further, the R.O. (PW-8) instructed the panch witness (PW-6) to remain close to the complainant (PW-7) and to overhear the conversation, and after being satisfied that bribe had actually been given, the panch witness (PW-6) was asked to give a signal by hurling his hand over his head.