ATMA RAM Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has filed this appeal challenging his conviction by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Sessions Case No. CC-344/1994 under Sections 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "act") as also the sentences awarded to him.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the conviction of the appellant-accused are that PW-2 Naresh Pal Singh (hereinafter to be referred as "the complainant")was working as a Home Guard and the appellant was his Platoon Commander and he used to assign duty to the Home Guards. The Home Guards used to get wages only for the days when they actually performed duty. Sometime around June, 1992 the appellant stopped assigning any duty to the complainant and when the complainant asked him the reason for not assigning duty to him the appellant demanded rs. 1,000/- as bribe from him for taking him on duty. Since the appellant did not take him on duty for quite sometime the complainant was left with no option but to accept his demand of bribe and as per the prosecution case he gave rs. 700/- to the appellant sometime in June,1992 but still the appellant did not take him on duty and insisted for payment of balance amount of Rs. 300/- also. On 2/7/92 also the appellant, when contacted by the complainant, told him to pay the balance bribe amount of Rs. 300/- and only then he shall be taken on duty and also told him to come with the money around 2 p. m. next day. At that time Naresh pal Singh had agreed to pay the balance amount to the appellant but then changed his mind and decided to report the matter to the anti-corruption branch. Accordingly he went to the office of the anti-corruption branch on 03/07/92 before noon and lodged his complaint (Ex. PW-2/a) wherein he narrated all these facts regarding the demand of bribe of Rs. 1000/- by the appellant and his having already paid Rs. 700/- to the appellant. In view of the complaint against a public servant it was decided to lay a trap to nab the appellant red handed while accepting bribe from the complainant. Inspector Abhey Ram (PW-6) was entrusted the task of laying the trap.

(3.) PW-6 then conducted pre-raid proceedings during which the complainant and one Government official (PW-4), who was already present there on duty to act as an panch witness if some trap was to be laid, were explained by the raid officer as to how the raid was going to be conducted to trap the appellant while accepting bribe from the complainant and what they (the complainant and the panch witness) were supposed to be doing during the actual raid at the spot where the appellant had called the complainant along with bribe money. For the purpose of raid the complainant had produced three currency notes of Rs. 100/- denomination to be used as bribe money for being offered to the appellant-accused at the time of raid. Those currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and a solution of sodium carbonate was also prepared by the raid officer. That is normally done in trap cases by the raid officers since if phenolphthalein treated notes are touched by anyone and that person"s fingers are dipped in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate that solution would turn pink and the raid officer would be satisfied that the public servant who was to be trapped had actually accepted the bribe at the time of raid from the complainant. The panch-witness Kanhaiya Lal (PW-4) was instructed to remain close to the complainant and to listen to the talks between the complainant and the appellant and on being satisfied that the appellant had demanded and obtained money as bribe only to give a signal to the police party. The raid officer drew pre-raid proceedings. Thereafter the raid team proceeded for the place where the raid plan was to be actually executed. As per the further prosecution case the complainant along with the panch-witness went to the place where the appellant was taking attendance of the Home Guards and after all the Home Guards had left the complainant approached the appellant and asked him to take him on duty on which the appellant demanded money from him. The complainant then took out the phenolphthalein treated three currency notes from his pocket and gave it to the appellant saying that he had already given him Rs. 700/- and now he was giving him Rs. 300/ -. The appellant accepted the money with his right hand and after counting the notes with his both hands told the complainant that he would now get duty. The panch-witness who was listening to the conversation between the complainant and the appellant and also saw the appellant accepting money from the complainant then gave the pre-arranged signal as per the plan to the raid officer who was standing at some distance from that place. On receipt of the signal from the panch witness the raid officer rushed there and apprehended the appellant and challenged him that he had accepted bribe from the complainant. The appellant became nervous and kept mum and did not give any explanation for the tainted money which he was still holding in his hand. The raid officer seized the tainted money, conducted phenolphthalein test by dipping the fingers of both the hands of the appellant in separate solutions of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The numbers of the recovered currency notes also tallied with the numbers already recorded by the raiding officer before going for the raid in the pre-raid proceedings. On being convinced that the appellant had accepted money from the complainant as bribe the raid officer got an FIR (Ex. PW-6/c) registered at the anti-corruption branch for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Act. The appellant was then formally arrested by PW-8 inspector B. M. Sharma to whom the investigation after the apprehension of the appellant was entrusted. Sanction for the prosecution of the appellant was granted by Sh. R. K. Sharma, Commandant, Home Guards (PW-3) vide his order dated 28. 07. 1994 (Ex. PW-3/a) and then the Anti-Corruption Branch filed a charge-sheet against the appellant-accused in the Court of Special Judge constituted under the Act to try corruption cases and the learned Special Judge tried him for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Act.