MOHINDER LAL BAGAI Vs. DELHI ADMINISTRATION,

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE case of the prosecution admits of statement in a very moderate compass, I proceed to state the same. Mohinder Lal Bagai, appellant, was charged under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(I)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and was convicted by the learned special Judge, Delhi, on both the charges, by judgement, dated August 8, 1967. He was sentenced to three years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2,000 under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the prevention of Corruption Act and three year's rigorous imprisonment under Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The two sentences were to run concurrently. He was to suffer a further six months' rigorous imprisonment for default in payment of fine.

(2.) THE substance of the charge against the appellant is that on March 24, 1966, while a public servant working in the capacity of Demolition Inspector (Building) under Municipal Corporation, Delhi, he obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 800 and of a cheque for Rs. 1,000 from Suresh Kanwar of Messrs. United Motor Agency, Kashmere Gate, Delhi, as a reward for having demolished on January 22, 1966 an unauthorised construction on the plot occupied by United Motor Agency.

(3.) IN the year 1962, four posts of Surveyors were lying vacant in the office of the Municipal Corporation of Delhi and names of 51 persons were recommended by the Employment Exchange. On 2nd May, 1962 the Deputy Commissioner directed the constitution of a board for interviewing the candidates. The said order is Exhibit P.W. 13/B. The board was accordingly constituted. The board interviewed the candidates and a panel of 29 persons (Exhibit P.W. 13/C) was prepared. Appellant's name appears at item No. 9. On May 25, 1962, the Administrative Officer of the Corporation put up a proposal to the Deputy Commissioner that appointment letters be issued to six candidates (Exhibit P.W. 13/D). The name of the appellant was not among the said six candidates. The Deputy Commissioner approved the proposal on June 2, 1962 and the endorsement by the Deputy Commissioner (Exhibit P.W. 13/D1) (as proved by T.N. Singal, P.W. 14) bears the initials of the Deputy Commissioner. On January 8, 1964, the Commissioner delegated all his powers vide Exhibit PH to Mr. Tandon, the Deputy Commissioner. It is appropriate to read the said document -