KANWALJIT SINGH Vs. STATE NCT OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These two appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 16.1.2007 and order on 'sentence' of the same day, whereby the learned Special Judge under Prevention and Corruption Act(in short "the Act"), convicted both the appellants under Section 7 of the Act read with Section 120B of Indian Penal Code and convicted appellant Anoop Singh under Section 13(1) (d) of the Act as well, punishable under Section 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding these appeals are that one Mr. Murari Lal was convicted by the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate under Section 498A of IPC in FIR No.201/1988 against which he preferred an appeal before the Sessions Court and the learned Sessions Court, vide an order dated 11.2.2004 acquitted him. After his acquittal, he made an application on 22.5.2004 before the Court of learned Metropolitan Magistrate for refund of Rs.5000/-, earlier deposited by him as fine. On his application, the learned MM Ms Sukhvinder Kaur passed an order dated 28.5.2004 for refund of the fine. He took this order of refund to the Ahlmad attached to the Court of MM on the same day. He found one Sikh gentleman and the Ahlmad sitting in Ahlmad room and he asked for issuance of refund voucher. No refund voucher was given to him and he was asked to come on next day. On next day again, no refund voucher was issued to him and he was again asked to come on next day. When he again went on next day, both the persons, i.e. Sikh gentleman and Ahlmad were present in the room and he was told by them that he will have to pay Rs.100 for getting the refund voucher. On being harassed like this, Murari Lal thought of making a complaint with Anti Corruption Department. He told them that he was not having money on that day and he will come on next day with money. On 01.06.2004, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and lodged a report to following effect: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_458_ILRDLH16_2007Html1.htm</FRM>

(3.) Mr. B.M. Gupta was called to Anti Corruption Department on that day as a panch witness. After receiving above complaint in writing at around 12 noon, Anti Corruption Department prepared for taking action and two notes of Rs.50 each were received from the complainant, their numbers were noted down and both the notes were treated with phenolphthalein Powder. The panch witness and the complainant were demonstrated how the powder reacts with sodium carbonate solution and it turns pink. The complainant and the panch witness were asked to empty their pockets. The complainant was given those two powder treated currency notes of Rs.50/- each which he kept in the right side pocket of his pant. The complainant was asked to give those two notes to the employees who had demanded bribe from him only on a demand being made otherwise he was not to hand over those currency notes. The panch witness was also told to remain present with the complainant and to overhear the conversation and to witness the transaction of giving bribe. If bribe was demanded and given by complainant, then he was to come out of the room and make a signal to the raiding party positioned outside the room. Thereafter, the members of the raiding party, panch witness and the complainant washed their hands with soap and proceeded to Tis Hazari Courts. The raiding party members were only to keep their identity cards with them and all other articles were left in the office. The raiding party took with it raiding box containing empty bottles, sealing material, sodium carbonate powder, seal, glass tumblers, water etc. A written record of pre-raid proceedings was prepared which is Ex.PW5/B. After reaching court complex, Inspector Rai Singh went to the then District and Sessions Judge, Shri J.P. Singh and apprised him of the purpose of coming to court and sought his permission for conducting raid. The District Judge orally allowed him to conduct the raid. Proceedings in this regard were drawn by him. Thereafter, complainant along with panch witness and the raiding party went to room No.334, 3rd floor of Tis Hazari Courts. The raiding party took position outside the room and the complainant and panch witness went inside. Proceedings were also drawn in this respect. What happened inside the room is stated in the post proceedings statement of the complainant on that day, on the basis of which the FIR was registered.