BHUSHAN CHOUDHARY Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application for suspension of sentence has been made on behalf of the appellant Bhushan Choudhary, who was convicted by the Trial Court under Section 120-B IPC, 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo three years RI with fine. It is submitted by the counsel for the appellant that judgment of the Trial Court was passed on conjecture and surmised. The appellant was innocent person. Appeal was continuation of the Trial Court. The appellant was on bail during the trial. He should, therefore, be released on bail during the continuation of appeal. There was no evidence against the appellant warranting his conviction.

(2.) The prosecution case before the Trial Court was that complainant Ram Manchanda had applied for installation of electricity meter vide receipt no. 038575 dated 26.09.1995 and was told that meter would be installed within eight days. When meter was not installed for about a month, he went to DESU office and met the area Inspector, Bhushan Choudhary(appellant), who demanded Rs. 15,000/- as bribe for installation of electricity meter and told that the bribe amount be paid at the residence of the complainant. Complainant gave information to SP CBI and lodged the complaint about this bribe demand. A raiding party was prepared and posted at the house of the complainant to trap the bribe demander. However, appellant Bhushan Choudhary himself did not turn up and sent one Ved Prakash to collect the bribe money of Rs.15,000/-. Complainant refused to pay bribe of Rs.15,000/- to Ved Prakash in absence of appellant Bhushan Choudhary. Ved Prakash then telephoned appellant Bhushan Choudhary from the residence of the complainant and told him about the decision of the complainant not to pay bribe money to him. Then appellant Bhushan Choudhary instructed the complainant to come to his office at 4.00 p.m. on the same day along with the bribe money. Raiding party reached the office of Bhushan Choudhary at 4/1 Subhash Nagar, New Delhi at about 3.50 p.m. along with this shadow witness and took positions. Complainant enquired about Bhushan Choudhary and came to know that he was not in the office. So both complainant and shadow witness waited for him there itself. After some time the appellant Bhushan Choudhary arrived in the office and took the complainant and witness to his office room where demand of Rs.15,000/- was made in presence of witness. Ved Prakash was also there in the office of appellant and appellant passed on the bribe money to Ved Prakash, who counted it and kept the same in his pocket. Both were apprehended in the office.

(3.) While arguing the application for suspension of sentence the counsel for the appellant has laid stress on the letter written by the IO after conducting of raid to the DESU not to further harass the complainant and install the connection. It is stated that IO transgressed his limit. It was not within his limit to wrote such letter.