SRI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 26. 02. 1999 and order dated 27. 02. 1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Sessions case No. 40/1993 whereby the appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced under Section 7 to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-with a default stipulation of two months rigorous imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine and under Section 13 (1) (d) to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and six months and also to pay a fine of rs. 4000/-, in default of payment of which to further undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE relevant facts leading to the prosecution of the appellant herein have been noticed by the trial court in paras 1-3 of the impugned judgment and are as under:-

(3.) AFTER obtaining Sanction Order (Ex. PW-7/a) dated 16. 05. 1991 for prosecution of the appellant from the Administrator of Municipal Committee, as required under Section 19 of the Act, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Act and the Special Judge also framed charges for these offences against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. To prove the accusations against the appellant, the prosecution had examined eight witnesses in all. The accused when examined under Section 313 Cr. P. C. stated that he had been falsely implicated because of complainant"s grudge against him as he (appellant) used to mark him absent in the duty register for coming late which used to result in deduction of his salary. Regarding the recovery of bribe money the plea put forth by him was that the complainant Sikandar had borrowed Rs. 5,000/- as a loan from him on 3. 3. 88 against which a receipt (Ex. DW-1/a) was also executed in the presence of one Gajender Singh Kohli (who was examined as a defence witness) and one T. R. Sharma. He further stated that it was agreed that the loan amount would be paid in instalments of Rs. 200/300 every month. On insistence of the appellant to pay up the loan amount due to the complainant"s failure to pay the installment of the previous month the complainant implicated him in a false case. The appellant went on to deny the recovery of bribe money at the time of raid and stated that on the day of the trap he was taking rest in the room in the school when the complainant came he asked the complainant to bring tea and his waist-coat and at that time the complainant clandestinely put the money in his waist coat which was hanging in the room and when he (the appellant) took out the money from the waist-coat he was apprehended by the officers of Anti Corruption Branch. The defence witness Sh. Gajender Singh Kohli deposed that on 03. 03. 1988 the complainant had taken loan of Rs. 5,000/- from the accused Sri Sharma for which a receipt Ex. DW-1/a was signed by the complainant and further that the complainant at that time had agreed to return the loan amount in installments of Rs. 200/- or Rs. 300/- per month.