KAMALJIT SINGH BEDI Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.07.1997 and order on sentence dated 22.7.1997 of the Special Judge convicting the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 ( in short, "the Act") and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one and a half years under Section 161 of the IPC with a fine of Rs.2000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three and a half years under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act with a fine of Rs.3000/-.

(2.) Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this appeal are that the complainant Baldev Singh Gill(PW-6) lived as a tenant in Flat No.C-4/132, Safdarjung Development Area. One of his electric meter got burnt on 2nd September, 1988. He made a report of the same to DESU on telephone and then he made contact with appellant who was working as Inspector in the Office of DESU at Green Park, New Delhi for replacement of his burnt meter. The appellant told him that he would get the meter changed but the meters were in short supply. However, if he pays Rs.600/- as 'Sewapani', he would get the meter changed. He also advised the complainant that instead of original meter of 10 Amp., he would get installed a meter of 30 Amp. at the premises of the complainant on his making an application for the same. The meter was replaced on 7.9.1988. However, after replacement of meter, the complainant received telephone call from the appellant demanding Rs.600/- as 'Sewapani'. On 8th September, 1988, the appellant again contacted the complainant and threatened him that in case he did not pay Rs.600, as demanded, before closing of the office hours on next date, his electric supply would be disconnected. After receiving this threat, the complainant approached Anti Corruption Branch on the morning of 9.9.1988 and lodged his complaint Ex.PW6/A. A raiding party was organized and Mr. S.P. Chaudhari, who was Zonal Employment Officer at Pusa, was joined as panch witness. The complainant gave six currency notes of Rs.100 each to Inspector. The same were treated with phenolphthalein and demonstration about the reaction of phenolphthalein with sodium carbonate solution, was given to the complainant and the panch witness. Treated currency notes were handed over to complainant with instructions to give the same to the appellant on his bribe demand. The panch witness Mr. S.P. Chaudhari was told to remain with the complainant and to listen to the talks between the complainant and appellant and on being satisfied that money had been demanded and paid, give a signal by moving his hands on the head. After giving these instructions, the raiding party reached Green Park Office of the appellant. The complainant and the panch witness were sent ahead. Rest of the raiding party remained at some distance. The appellant met complainant outside the gate of his office. On seeing the complainant with panch witness, he said " Aap Aa Gaye" and made enquiries about Mr. S.P. Chaudhary. The complainant introduced Mr. S.P. Chaudhary as another tenant in the same building whose meter was also burnt. The appellant told the complainant to give Sewapani first and he would talk to Mr. S.P. Chaudhary later on. The complainant gave treated currency notes to the appellant. The appellant accepted the money in his right hand and put it in the left front pocket of his shirt. After observing all this panch witness, gave signal to the raiding party and raiding party reached the spot and introduced itself to the appellant and told that as per complaint, he had received bribe of Rs.600/-. The appellant remained quite. Inspector Kanwal Singh (PW-9) recovered the money from the front left pocket of shirt of the appellant. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the pre-raid report. The right hand wash and the shirt pocket wash solution of the appellant turned pink. The same were sent for chemical analysis. The report showed that the bottles gave positive test of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. After obtaining sanction and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant.

(3.) Learned trial court, after appreciating evidence and considering the entire material which had come on record, came to conclusion that the charge against the appellant stood proved and offence under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act stood proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.