YOGESH Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal has been filed against the judgement of conviction dtd. 11/9/2009 and order on sentence dtd. 14/9/2009 passed by Special Judge, Delhi in Criminal Case No. 39/2002 arising out of FIR No. 08/2001 registered under Ss. 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (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, to undergo further simple imprisonment for a period of three months. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. The appellant was given the benefit of Sec. 428 Cr.P.C.

(2.) In the chargesheet, the prosecution alleged that the complainant Chattar Singh,being in garment business, applied for sales tax registration. One Insp. Sandeep Yadav who was verifying his application, on 10/1/2001, demanded a bribe of Rs.5,000.00 from the complainant but later during their meeting on 1/2/2001, the demand was reduced to Rs.3,000.00. Sandeep Yadav asked complainant to come to his office with the bribe amount on 2/2/2001. Aggrieved with the demand, the complainant approached Anti-Corruption Branch on the same day and gave a complaint to Insp. Sudesh Kumari (the Raiding officer) in presence of the panch witness Om Prakash Gupta. The complainant arranged Rs.3,000.00 in cash in the form of five GC notes in the denomination of Rs.500.00 and Rs.100.00 each. In pre-trap proceedings, the serial numbers of GC notes were noted in presence of the panch witness and complainant, and the notes were also treated with Phenolphthalein powder. A trap was organised. The Raid officer alongwith complainant, panch witness and other members of the raiding team reached the Sales Tax Office, ITO at 2.50 P.M. One another person namely Mr. Sanjeev Miglani, who was complainant's Chartered Accountant also accompanied the raiding party. Though Sandeep Yadav was not there, the appellant, a Sales Tax Officer, met the complainant and bribe of Rs.1500.00was recovered from him. The Raid officer also recovered Rs.200.00 from one Reena Sapra, the stenographer. The wash of both the hands of the appellant and wash of left pocket of his shirt were taken separately in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The appellant and co-accused Reena Sapra were thereafter apprehended.

(3.) In the trial, a total of 13 witnesses were examined by the prosecution to prove its case. The complainant was examined as PW7, Om Prakash Gupta the panch witness as PW10A and the Trap Laying/Raid Officer Sudesh Kumari was examined as PW12. Sanjeev Miglani, the CA was examined as PW2. Besides above, the other witnesses were formal in nature relating to various aspects of investigation.