MADHU SANKHLA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This application has been made by the appellant for suspension of sentence. The appellant has been convicted by the Trial Court under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was working in Delhi Police as Sub Inspector and posted in CAW Cell Amar Colony. She was investigating FIR No. 997/98 PS Sriniwaspuri lodged by PW 2 Mr. Ratan Kumar Modi. The complainant found that investigation of the case was not being done and charge-sheet was not being filed in the case and when he contacted the Investigating Officer i.e. the appellant, a demand of Rs.50,000/- as bribe was made from him. A report was made by him to CBI in respect of this demand of bribe and a trap was laid. In his complaint he reported demand having been made by ACP Smt. Praveen Dutt, Inspector Shashi Punj and the appellant and out of total demand of Rs.50,000/- the appellant had to pay first installment of payment to the police officials on 1.10.1999. He took Rs.5,000/- each for the appellant and Ms. Shashi Punj, Inspector, and Rs. 10,000/- for Ms. Parveen Dutt, ACP. However, the evidence shows that entire amount of Rs.20,000/- bribe was received/obtained by Ms. Madhu Sankhla, SI (Appellant). After she received this amount a signal was given to raiding party and recovery of amount was made from a file/file cover on the table of the appellant. The trap team/raiding party seized the amount. Hand wash of the Appellant was taken on the spot in presence of other police official present in the room and sodium carbonate solution turned pink. That other police official appeared as a witness and testified about the recovery of the amount as well as of taking of hand wash and Sodium Carbonate solution turning pink because of the presence of Phenolphthalein powder on the hands of appellant. The appellant was arrested and investigation started. Though the complainant had named Inspector Shashi Punj and ACP Parveen Dutt also as bribe demanders but the charge-sheet filed by the CBI placed them in column no. 2 on the ground that no evidence could be found against them. After conclusion of the trial, the appellant was convicted by the Trial Court and sentenced to undergo RI for 02 years and a fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act and RI for 03 years and fine of Rs.25,000/- under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) It is argued by the counsel for the applicant that PW 8 and PW 9 are two police officers, who were placed in column 2 of charge sheet and they could not have been examined as prosecution witnesses. This itself knocks out the case of the prosecution. Since the accused have been examined as prosecution witnesses. The other plea taken is that the complainant was given a micro recorder in order to record the conversation between him and the appellant. This conversation was recorded, but the recorded conversation was not produced in the Court and an adverse inference has to be drawn against the prosecution that the recording conversation, if produced would have gone against the prosecution. The Trial Court in its judgment did take the view that if the recorded conversation had been produced, it may have gone against the prosecution, but still, convicted the appellant. The conviction was bad.

(3.) It is submitted by the learned counsel that the demand of bribe has not been established and unless the demand of bribe was proved, the acceptance of bribe or obtaining bribe stands nowhere. Reliance has been placed on the evidence of other witnesses to plead that demand of bribe was not proved. It is also submitted by Mr. Dinesh Mathur, Sr. Advocate that the appellant was no longer in the department on the day raid was conducted. She was already transferred from CAW Cell on 28th September, 1999 itself, so she could not have done any favour to the complainant in the case and could not have filed challan. He also relied upon the fact that the panch witness had not heard the conversation that went on between complainant and the appellant, since he was sitting outside the gate and he only saw the complainant coming out from the room and giving signal to the trap team, thereafter he entered the room along with trap team.