RAJ KUMAR Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.09.2008 passed in CC No. 104/06/01 arising out of FIR No.65/2000 PS AC Branch under Section 7/13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (P.C. Act) titled, State Vs. Raj Kumar, whereby the appellant was convicted of the offence punishable under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act, and against the order on sentence dated 22.09.2008, whereby the appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.4,000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for four months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 7 P.C. Act, and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs.6000/- and on failure to pay the same, to undergo simple imprisonment for six months for the commission of offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) P.C. Act. Both substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently and the appellant/convict was given the benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The case of the prosecution was that on 27.12.2000, the complainantPrakarti Kumar (PW-6) gave a hand-written complaint (Exhibit PW-6/A) at the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) to Inspector S.S.Sandhu, the Raid Officer (RO), PW-8. In the complaint, the complainant disclosed that he was having his office in the area of P.P.Govindpuri near Madina Masjid, Okhla Road, for the last 8 years and he was running his temporary office therein. There was some vacant land of DDA behind his office on which some persons had constructed their jhuggis. One of the said jhuggiwalas sold his jhuggi to one Liyakat. The said Liyakat wanted to have his direct passage from that jhuggi to the main road, Okhla. Liyakat wanted the complainant to remove his temporary office in which he had put up his table and chairs. At his instance, the accused Raj Kumar who was in-charge of the said area, was threatening the complainant since 05.12.2000 to vacate his office, or else face false implication in a case. When the complainant requested the accused not to remove his temporary office, the accusedconstable Raj Kumar told him on 08.12.2000, that Liyakat had given him Rs. 3,000/- to get vacated the complainant's office and, if the complainant would give him Rs. 5,000/-, his office would not be removed from there.

(3.) The further case of the prosecution was that on receipt of this complaint from the complainant, the R.O., PW-8 read the same to the panch witness Gurander Singh (PW-7) posted on official duty in the ACB and got his signatures on the complaint. Thereafter, the complainant produced eight G.C. notes of Rs. 500/- each and ten G.C. notes of Rs.100/- each (Exhibit P-3). The R.O. recorded their numbers in the pre-raid report (Exhibit PW- 6/B). The panch witness (PW-7) tallied the numbers on the G.C. notes Exhibit P-3 with those recorded in Exhibit PW-6/B. The R.O. applied phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes and gave the required demonstration. The notes were returned to the complainant by the RO, who kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt. The R.O. instructed the complainant and the panch witness (PW-7) to remain together. The panch witness (PW-7) was further directed to give a pre-assigned signal by waiving his hand over his turban after the transaction of bribe was completed.