D V SINGH Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was working as Junior Engineer in the Building Department of Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), his office being at Town Hall, Delhi in January, 1996. It was concededly part of his duty to examine and put up before the authorities, the applications for grant of sanction for building activity. Indisputably, an application in the name of Mrs. C.K. Khurana, wife of Mr. O.P. Khurana (PW-1) for sanction of building plan in respect of the property described as plot no.M-12, New Multan Nagar, Rohtak Road, New Delhi, had been submitted and the appellant was to process the same. Indisputably, O.P. Khurana (PW-1), the husband of the applicant had approached the appellant in such context, having met him, at least thrice, in the month of January, 1996, once on 04.01.1996 and thereafter on 17th and 18th January, 1996. On 17.01.1996, pursuant to the instructions of the appellant, PW-1 deposited the requisite fee of Rs.374/- with the cashier, it being the charge for the building plans to be sanctioned.

(2.) On 18.01.1996, PW-1 approached the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) with a complaint (Ex. PW1/A) about demand of illegal gratification in the sum of Rs.5,000/- by the appellant. On the said complaint, Deputy Superintendent of Police, S.K. Peshin (PW-6) was directed to lay a trap. It is alleged that FIR (Ex. PW1/A) was registered and, thereafter, a trap was laid on 19.01.1996 in which 50 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and after pre-trap proceedings (PW1/C), the complainant (PW-1) accompanied by a shadow witness Rakesh Kumar Gandhi (PW-2) were sent to the office of the appellant on 19.01.1996. The trap team also included another panch witness A.K. Bhatia (PW-4). It is alleged that during the interaction in the office of the appellant, the demand of illegal gratification was reiterated by the appellant, in the presence of PW-2, and the trap money was accepted, the same having been later recovered in the presence of a shadow witness (PW-4), the trap proceedings (Ex. PW1/D) having been overseen and witnessed, amongst others, by PW-6, the trap laying officer (TLO).

(3.) On the basis of the charge-sheet which was laid in the court of the Special Judge, the appellant was put on trial on 21.02.1997 on the charge for offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, the gravamen essentially being that he had demanded, and accepted, Rs.5,000/- as illegal gratification for carrying out official duty in the above nature.