RAJESH KUMAR BALIYAN Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction and order on sentence dtd. 12/3/2010 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 124/2008 arising out of FIR No. 28/2003 registered under Ss. 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter, referred to as "PC Act") at P.S. Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi. Vide the impugned judgement, the appellant was convicted for the offences under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) of PC Act and vide the order on sentence, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years along with fine of Rs.10,000.00 on each count, in default whereof, he was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of six months. The said sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was given the benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) The facts in a nutshell are that the Complainant Mohd. Fahad had purchased a flat in name of his mother which was allotted by DDA. The complainant was asked by BSES department to get some documents attested by a DDA officer for purposes of meter installation. The appellant was an Executive Engineer attached with Electrical Division No.7, Keshav Puram, Lawrence Road, Near Water Tank, Delhi. The complainant met the appellant on 23/6/2003 when the appellant allegedly demanded Rs.3,000.00 for attesting the documents. When the complainant resisted, the appellant settled for a sum of Rs.1,000.00 and asked him to come on 28/6/2023. On the said date, the complainant went to the Anti-Corruption Branch and gave a written complaint Ex. PW6/A in presence of panch witness Uma Shanker Gupta before Raid Officer insp. Sheel Nidhi. The complainant arranged Rs.l,000/- in cash in the form of two currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500.00each and handed them to the Raid Officer. The notes were also checked by the panch witness and their serial numbers were noted down and they were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder in the pre-trap proceedings.

(3.) It is duly informed that during the course of proceedings, the appellant has expired on 11/6/2021. Since the outcome of the appeal would have an impact on the pensionary benefits of the deceased, the wife of the appellant was granted leave under Sec. 394(2) Cr.P.C. to continue the appeal vide order dtd. 2/8/2022 and was substituted as appellant in the place of deceased. For convenience's sake, the deceased is referred to as the appellant.