OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN January, 1993, appellant was working as Phone Sub Inspector in the office of SDO-IV, MTNL, at Rajouri Garden, Delhi and on 27th January 1993 at about 2. 00 pm he had gone to the house of the complainant Ashok Arora (PW-1) and there, he was purportedly caught by the raiding team of the Central Bureau of investigation (CBI) after he had accepted bribe of rupees two hundred from the complainant for changing the telephone instrument of the complainant.

(2.) THE sequence of events relating to pre-raid and post-raid proceedings already stand highlighted in the opening paragraphs of the impugned judgment and to avoid repetition, these details are not being reproduced herein. Suffice to say, that the demand of bribe was purportedly made by the appellant on 25th January, 1993, when complainant PW-1 was told by Hari Prakash, Junior Engineer of MTNL to contact the appellant for the change of the telephone instrument. On the complaint Ex. PW1/a made by the complainant to the CBI, a trap was organized by inspector S. S. Kakkar who included two officers of Punjab and Sindh Bank of connaught Palace Branch i. e. Raj Kapoor and Bhupinder Singh in the raid and a demonstration was given to the complainant as well as to the above two shadow witnesses and the bribe money i. e. two GC notes of rupees hundred each were treated with powder and were handed over to the complainant to be given to the appellant on demand. At the spot, i. e. at the house of the complainant, appellant purportedly accepted the bribe money and he was caught by the Trap laying Officer Inspector S. S. Kakkar who recovered the bribe money from the pocket of the appellant and the post-raid proceedings were completed after the hand wash of the appellant was taken in the solution which was sent for chemical analysis and as per CFSL report Ex. PW3/a, has tested positive.

(3.) ON the basis of the above-said investigation, appellant was put to trial for commission of offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as he had pleaded not guilty to the charges framed by the trial court under the aforesaid sections.