NARENDER KUMAR Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) On 4.6.1997 first information report (FIR) No. 24/1997 (Ex.PW-10/C) was registered in anti corruption branch (ACB) of National Capital Territory of Delhi (NCT of Delhi) on the basis of complaint (Ex.PW-7/A) of Ram Kumar (PW-7) and the action taken thereupon by Inspector Satbir Singh (PW-11) of ACB. On conclusion of investigation into the said FIR, a report under section 173 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Cr.P.C) was submitted on 1.7.99 in the court of special judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Delhi, seeking prosecution of three persons, they being Narender Kumar (accused No.1), Mukesh Kumar Sharma (accused No.2) and Surman (accused No.3), for offences punishable under Sections 713 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 besides offences under Sections 353, 186, 332, 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC). Upon cognizance being taken on the said report (charge-sheet) by the special judge, and upon they being summoned, the said three accused persons were eventually put on trial on charge framed on 15.2.2003 for offences under Sections 120B IPC, section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 Sec. 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Sec. 332 IPC. At the conclusion of the trial, by judgment dated 27.5.2006, accused No.2 Mukesh Kumar Sharma (A-2) was acquitted. The others, accused No.1 Narender (A-1) and accused No.3 Surman @ Surbhan (also named as Surbhan or Suraj Bhan) (a-3), however, were held, guilty and convicted for offences under section 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 each read with Sec. 120 B Penal Code with A-3 also being guilty for offence under Sec. 332 IPC. By order dated 29.5.2006, the special judge awarded rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 4,000.00 each for offences under section 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 respectively against both convicts. A-3 was also sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 1,000.00 for offence under Sec. 332 IPC.

(2.) Both convicted persons filed these appeals, the appeal of A-1 being Crl.A. 431/2006 and the appeal of A-3 being Crl.A. No. 451/2006, challenging the conviction and the order on sentence. The first appellant, A-1, however, died before his appeal could be heard and adjudicated upon, the death having occurred on 4.9.2016. On the application (Crl.M.A. 18723/2016) of his wife and children, however, invoking Sec. 394 read with Sec. 482 Crimial P.C. 1973 by order dated 15.3.2017, they were allowed to prosecute the appeal further.

(3.) The prosecution case, in brief, was that all the three accused persons who were sent up for trial were employees of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD) at the relevant point of time, A-1 working in the capacity of supervisor in Hackney Carriage Department of West Zone of office of Deputy Commissioner, MCD, other two being rickshaw catchers placed at his disposal. PW-7, the first informant (or the complainant), on the other hand, was engaged in the business of running a rickshaw garage, the garage maintaining 120 cycle rickshaws, clearly let out for being plied on hire. His complaint forming the basis of the FIR itself shows he was holding a political position in an entity described as "Delhi Rickshaw Chalak/Maalik Sangh/Morcha". He was well acquainted with the three accused persons on account of his said business.