BRIJ NANDAN PERSHAD YAJURVEDI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Brij Nandan Pershad Yajurvedi, the appellant, was employed as the Chief Sanitary Inspector with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi. He was prosecuted under Section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and under section 161 I.P.C. He was convicted by the judgment dated March 20, 1975 of the court of Shri H.P. Bagchi, Special Judge, Delhi for all these offences 2nd was sentenced of R.I. for two years. Two other persons, namely, Atam Parkash and Bansi Lal were also prosecuted along with the appellant under section 165-A read with section 34 I.P.C. Atam Parkash accused was convicted under section 165-A I.P.C. find was sentenced to six months R.I. Bansi Lal accused was, however, acquitted by Shri Bagchi. Brij Nandan Prashad Yajurvedi and Atam Parkash preferred appeals against their conviction and sentence to this Court. The sentences as awarded to them were set aside by this Court and the case of these two accused was remanded to the trial court for affording them an opportunity of being heard in the matter of sentence before sentences were awarded to them. The Court did not go into the question of the legality of their conviction. Atam Parkash was released on probation for a period of one year by the impugned order of sentence by Shri Bagchi dated March 31, 1977. Brij Nandan Pershad Yajurvedi, the present appellant, by the same order was sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the Act) and section 161 I.P.C. He was also sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/- under section 5(2) of the Act. Both the sentences were made to run concurrently. Brij Nandan Pershad Yajurvedi has now come up in appeal against his aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) The prosecution case stated in brief is that Satish Chander Sood (P. W. 81 used to keep a few rehris fitted with water coolers for selling ice cold water in Shakti Nagar area in the year 1974. The appellant used to harass him for the latters parking these rehris there find wanted to extort money from him. The appellant came to Satish Chander Sood in February 1974 and told him that if he wanted to park his rehris he will have to pay Rs. 40/- per month as bribe. Satish Chander Sood told the appellant that he would send the money to him at his office at 16, Rajpur Road, Delhi on March 30, 1974. Satish Chander Sood reported this to the Anti Corruption Staff. His statement Ex. P.W. 8/A in that regard was recorded on March 30, 1974. Inspector Daya Kishan of the Anti Corruption Staff (P. W. 9) then organised a raiding party in which he joined Shri Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) and Shri Jai Parkash Bhatnagar (P.W. 3), two officials of different departments of the Delhi Administration. The said statement of Satish Chander Sood, Ex. P.W. 8/A, was read over to him in the presence of these two witnesses. P.W. B/A, admitted that to be correct. Satish Chander Sood then gave four currency notes of rupee ten each to the Investigating Officer. Their numbers were recorded to the raid report Ex. P.W. 2/A. These currency notes were also treated with phenolphthalein powder. Its significance wag explained to these three witnesses. These currency notes were returned to Sood P.W. with the direction to pass them on to the appellant Yajurvedi on his demand in the presence of the panch witnesses. On the amount being so passed the two panch witnesses were instructed to give the agreed signal. All this was incorporated in the memo Ex. P.W. 2/A which was attested by Jai Parkash Bhatnagar and Satish Chander Sood P.Ws. The raiding party then reached the Rajpur Road Office where the appellant was employed at 2.30 p.m. Sood (P.W. 8) along with Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) went to the office of the appellant. The remaining raiding party took up their positions at some distance front of the office building. The appellant was not found in his office room. Sood P. W. then went to the rear of the building. Bhatnagar P.W. remained behind him at some distance. Sood then met the appellant. He told him that he had brought the money. The appellant told Sood to accompany him telling him that he would point out towards a person to whom he (Sood) should pay the money. They both then came towards the verandah and stood outside the same. Bhatnagar P.W. was then standing inside the verandah, a few paces away from them. The appellant then called his co-accused Atam Parkash who was the contractor of the cycle stand of the office. The appellant told Sood P.W. that he should pay the money to Atam Parkash. Atam Parkash went away towards the cycle stand. Sood P.W. remained standing by the side of the appellant for about a minute. He then went to Atam Parkash accused. Bhatnagar P.W. followed him. Atam Parkash started washing his hands at the water tap near the cycle stand and told Sood that his hands were wet and pointed out towards Bansi Lal who was standing nearby and who was an employee of Atam Parkash to give money to him. Sood then gave the four currency notes of rupees ten each to Bansi Lal. Bansi Lal took them in his right hand and put them in the left front pocket of his shirt. Bhatnagar P.W. then gave the signal. The police party reached at the spot. Bhatnagar P.W. pointed out towards Bansi Lal as the person who received the money. Inspector Daya Kishan asked Bansi Lal if he had received the money. Bansi Lal stated that he had received the money at the asking of thekedar Atam Parkash. Atam Parkash also reached there in the meanwhile and on being questioned stated that that was not his money, but was the money for the Chief Sahib. The solution of sodium carbonate was prepared at the spot. The right hand of the accused Bansi Lal was dipped in that which turned pink. That solution was sealed in the bottle Ex. P 5 vide seizure memo Ex. P.W. 2/C. The shirt Ex. P 6 was also got removed from the person of Bansi Lal accused and was again dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate which also turned pink. The shirt was also sealed vide memo Ex. P.W. 2/D. The raiding party then went to the room of the appellant. Inspector Daya Kishan questioned the appellant as to whether he had directed Sood and Atam Parkash as stated by them. The appellant, however, denied the same. The appellant in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C. denied all the material facts his appearing in the prosecution evidence produced against him. He further stated that he had scolded some members of the staff for their improper working and the complainant had come out with a false case against him at their instance in order to put pressure on him. He examined two witnesses in defence. The learned trial court held that from the facts and circumstances appearing in the statements of Satish Kumar Sood, complainant, (P. W. 8), J.P. Bhatnagar (P. W. 3) and Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) the charge under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act stood proved against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant was accordingly convicted thereunder and sentenced.

(3.) Mr. Frank Atheny, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, raised a few points in support of his contention that the trial court was in error in holding the appellant guilty of the offences in question. It was submitted that Satish Kumar Sood, complainant, in his statement in court as P.W. 8 has stated that the appellant used to come to him and demand bribe for allowing him to ply rehris, but that there was no mention about the story of such demand by the appellant in his complaint to the Police Ex. P.W. 8/A and no other witness deposed about the same. The record reveals that this witness was not confronted with his statement to the Police Ex. P. W. 8/ A in the said regard. Under the circumstances this submission is not at all available to the appellant. Even otherwise the fact as to whether the appellant had made demands for bribe from Sood complainant prior to the one in February 1974 or not was not a material question or a material part of the story of the prosecution and as such its omission in the statement of the complainant to the police i.e. Ex. P.W. 8/A was wholly inconsequential and did not discredit the case of the prosecution in any manner. As regards no other witness of the prosecution deposing about the same it is common sense that a demand for the illegal gratification is not expected to be made from any person by a public servant in the presence of others. It was next submitted that the prosecution version that the appellant had told the complainant to pay the money to Atam Prakash was an improbable one because if the appellant was to take bribe from. Sood, P.W. 8, who was offering the, same to him, there was no reason as to why the appellant would not have taken the bribe himself and as to why he would have told and directed the complainant to pay the same to his co-accused, Atam Prakash. The answer to this is not far to seek. Taking of bribe money is a hazardous task. The simple explanation is that the appellant did not want to take the risk of taking the currency notes himself. He played a clever and cautious role and he had devised the method of taking the bribe money through his co-accused, Atam Prakash, instead of taking the same directly from the complainant. It was next submitted by Mr. Anthony that there was no evidence of the prosecution worth the name that the appellant had called Atam Prakash near him and the complainant or that he (the appellant) had told the complainant, P.W. 8, to pay the money to Atam Prakash. According to Mr. Antheny in the absence of the evidence of the prosecution to prove that the appellant had told the complainant to pay the money to Atam Prakash, all other prosecution evidence including the factum of the recovery of the sum of Rs. 40/- from the person of his co-accused, Bansi Lal, did not bring the guilt home to the appellant. There is no merit in this submission. Satish Chand Sood, P.W. 8, has stated that he and the appellant had come toward, the verandah on the back of the office building and that time the panch witness J. P. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) was 5-6 paces behind them and at that time the appellant had told him to pity the money to Atam Prakash, towards whom be had also pointed out at that very time. He further stated that on hearing that Atam Prakash co-accused went away towards the cycle stand. This statement of P.W. 8 finds corroboration from the statement of J. P. Bhatnagar, P.W. 3. He has stated that the appellant had whispered in the ear of the complainant while they were standing near the verandah and had directed the complainant towards the gate near the cycle stand. The complainant then went towards the gate and he follower him. He went on to say that towards the left side of the gate of the water tap Atam Prakash co-accused was standing washing his hands and the complainant then had some talk with him (Atam Prakash) which he could not hear as he was at a distance of about 10-12 paces from him He also stated that Atam Prakash then directed the complainant went near Bansi Lal. He banded over the four currency notes to Bansi Lal. Some corroboration to the statements of these two witnesses is also found from the statement of Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) the other panch witness, who had stated at some distance away from the back verandah. He has stated that on the apprehension of Bansi Lal by Inspector Daya Kishan, the former bad stated that he -had received the money under the directions of the cycle contractor, Atam Prakash. He has also stated that Atam Prakash accused was questioned by the Inspector and he then stated that he had been called and told by Yajurvedi, Chief Saheb, to receive the money from the complainant and since the hands of Atam Prakash were unclean and he was going to wash them, he had directed the complainant to give the money to Bansi Lal accused. This witness no doubt did not support the prosecution to the extent that he has not been able to say as to who was the person to whom the complainant Sood talked while getting down from the steps of the verandah and before the complainant went to the cycle stand from there followed by the panch witness, J.P. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3). He stated that he was unable to state as to who that person was because at that time his attention was towards other direction. Nothing has been brought on the record to show as to why the complainant Satish Chand Sood would falsely implicate the appellant in the case of such a serious offence, particularly so when he was to ply rehris over which the Municipal Corporation of Delhi has admittedly got supervisory control. Jai Prakash Bhatangar (P.W. 3) and Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) were both government servants and were independent witnesses. There was nothing on the record to show as to why they would also falsely implicate the appellant in the case. The trial court was thus right in relying on the statements of these witnesses and in coming to the conclusion that the said part of the prosecution story stood proved beyond a reasonable doubt from the statements of these witnesses. Some other equally minor points were raised by Mr. Antheny. It was submitted that in the site plan Ex. P.W. 9/B as prepared by the Investigating Officer, Inspector Daya Kishan (P. W. 9) there was no indication of the point where Atam Prakash co-accused is stated to have met the complainant and that that went to belie the prosecution version that the complainant had met Atam Prakash. I do not think that it was essential for the Investigating Officer to show the point in the site plan as to where the complainant met Atam Prakash. In any case the omission of the Investigating Officer to show that place in the site plan, to my mind, did not introduce any infirmity in the case of the prosecution and the prosecution case could not be considered as not proved or of a doubtful nature merely because of the said omission on the part of the Investigating Officer which otherwise stood proved from the ocular evidence of P. W. 3 and P.W. 8. It was next submitted that Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) did not support the prosecution version as regards the fixing of the identity of Atam Prakash as the person whom the complainant met and who directed the complainant to Bansi Lal co-accused and that under the circumstances he should have been got declared as hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution and the fact that no attempt was made on behalf of the prosecution to cross-examine him on that point introduced an infirmity in the case of the prosecution. I am unable to see as to how it was incumbent for the prosecution to take steps to cross-examine this witness on the above regard merely because he had stated that he was not able to say as to who that person was with whom the complainant had a talk and who directed the complainant to Bansi Lal as his attention was not focused towards that at that moment. It was next pointed out that as per the prosecution evidence the appellant was arrested after about 20 or 30 minutes of the recovery of money from Bansi Lal and that this delay was not explained by the prosecution and that also went against the case of the prosecution. There is no merit in this submission as well. Inspector Daya Kishan (PW 9) has stated that after challenging Bansi Lal accused he approached Atam Prakash, co-accused, and after disclosing his identity to him asked him as to for what purpose he had received the money through Bansi Lal accused and that on that Atam Prakash had stated that he had received the amount for Shri Brij Nandan Prashad Yajurvedi accused who had directed him to receive the same. From his statement it is also clear that Inspector Daya Kishan had explained the significance of the solution as prepared by him with sodium carbonate wherein he gave the right hand of Bansi accused and thereafter the solution was transferred into a bottle which was sealed and seized and a memo Ex. P. W. 2/C was prepared. G.C. notes as recovered from Bansi accused were taken into possession vide memo Ex. P.W. 2/D and were sealed and it was after taking all these proceedings that they went to apprehend the appellant, Brij Nandan Prashad Yajurvedi. All this obviously must have taken 20-30 minutes. It was lastly submitted by Mr. Antheny that the learned Special Judge has also made use of the statement of Atam Prakash co-accused allegedly made by him to the police to the effect that the appellant him told him to take the money from the complainant. It was submitted that the impugned judgment was thus vitiated. I do not find any merit in this submission. Without going into the question of the admissibility of the said statement of the coaccused of the appellant it world suffice to say that the case of the prosecution stood fully proved beyond a reasonable doubt from the other evidence of the prosecution as adduced on the record and as discussed in the impugned judgment elaborately excluding the impugned statement of Atam Prakash co-accused of the appellant and that was not a material piece of evidence as relied on by the prosecution. No other point was urged by Mr. Antheny. I need hardly repeat that the complainant Sood (P.W.8) has fully narrated the prosecution version. His statement was corroborated by his complaint to the police, Ex. P. W. 8/ A, which is the F.I.R. of tile case. J.P. Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) has also corroborated the statement of Sood. P.W. 8. Their statements also find full corroboration from the statement of Ved Pal Singh (P.W. 2) except that he was not able to say if the person who directed the complainant Sood to Bansi Lal accused was Atam Prakash. Regarding the details of the organizing of the raid Inspector Daya Kishan (P. W. 9) has given a detailed statement. From the prosecution evidence the recovery of the sum of Rs. 40/- from the person of Bansi Lal co-accused of the appellant also stood proved. There was nothing on the record to show as to why any of the three prosecution witnesses, namely, Satish Chand Sood (P. W. 8). Jai Prakash Bhatnagar (P.W. 3) and Ved Pal Singh (P. W. 2) would falsely depose against the appellant from whose statements the prosecution case stood proved beyond a reasonable doubt. The learned trial court was thus right in convicting the appellant for the offences in question. I agree with its conclusions. The sentence of one year R.I. on each of the two counts and a fine of Rs. 100/- as awarded to the appellant also cannot be said to be excessive. . There is thus no merit in the appeal and the same is accordingly dismissed. The appellant is on bail. A copy of this judgment be sent to the trial court which shall cause the taking of the appellant into custody and shall send him to jail to undergo period of sentence. Appeal dismissed.