KIRTI RAM SHARMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Kirti Ram Sharma was posted as Licensing Inspector, Municipal Corporation of Delhi, Shahdara Zone, Delhi. Being a public servant, he is alleged to have demanded and accepted a sum of Rs. 100.00 from Manak Singh, as a gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward to help the complainant in getting him a factory licence at his premises No. 2044/X, Rajgarh Extension, Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. He was accordingly charged for offences punishable under Sec. 161 Indian Penal Code and section 5(2) read with Sections 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. By order dated 2nd of Dec., 1982, he was convicted of both the charges and sentenced to imprisonment for a period of 2 years R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each count and in default to suffer R.I. for 3 months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. Shri Sharma is not satisfied with the finding of the learned Judge and has challenged his conviction and sentence in this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution as disclosed by Manak Singh in brief is, that on Oct. 11, 1979, he lodged a complaint before the Anti-corruption Branch alleging therein that he was having a workshop at X-2044, Rajgarh Extension, Shahdara. He wanted a factory licence for the said workshop. In this behalf, he had given an application on March 30, 1979 at the office of the M.C.D. Hindu College Building, Kashmiri Gate. That application was marked to the accused who at the time was working as the Licensing factory inspector of that area. As per the averments in the complaint, the accused kept the disposal of the application pending for sufficiently long time. About 21/2 months back, the accused came to the workshop and told the complainant that a sum of Rs. 500.00 to Rs. 600.00 would be required to be spent for getting the licence. The complainant expressed his inability to incur such a huge amount. He however, offered to pay a sum of Rs. 325.00 only. It is further alleged that on Oct. 11, 1979, the complainant approached the accused at his office at about 3.30 p.m. and requested for the grant of the licence upon which the accused asked him to bring the amount. The complainant agreed to arrange a sum of Rs. 100.00 on that very day and promised to pay the remaining amount after the job was done. On this the accused asked him to come to the office by 5 p.m. and that he would wait for him. He also handed over two affidavits purporting to be of one Joginder Singh and his son Rajpal Singh for getting them attested from a Notary Public.

(3.) It is the case of the complainant that after getting the affidavits attested from the Notary Public, he contacted Inspector Roop Chand of the Anti-Corruption Branch. After his statements was recorded, the Inspector arranged for two witnesses in whose presence the complainant was required to hand over the amount of Rs. 100.00. In the office the Inspector completed the formalities of applying the phenolphthalein powder to the currency note of Rs. 100.00 giving the demonstration to the witnesses and issuing the necessary directions to the Panch witnesses that they should hear the talk between the complainant and the accused and observe the passing of the illegal gratification. The raiding party reached the office of the accused at about 5.20 p.m. but by that time, the accused had left his office. The complainant then told the Inspector that he would fix some other time with the accused for paying the bribe and inform the Anti-corruption Branch.