LAWS(DLH)-1998-3-92

TEKA RAM Vs. STATE

Decided On March 23, 1998
TEKA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF DELHI Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) . This appeal arises from the judgment of Shri H.P. Bagchi, Special Judge, Delhi delivered in corruption case No. 26/76. Basic facts necessary to dispose of this appeal are recapitulated as under:

(2.) . Accused Teka Ram was functioning as Reader in the court of Sub Divisional Magistrate (for short SDM), Patel Nagar on 25.10.1975. The allegation against Teka Ram is that he was a public servant and in his discharge of official duty by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as public servant, he accepted or obtained Rs.8.00 as illegal gratification other than his legal remuneration from the complainant Duli Chand through Hari Ram, co-accused, as a motive or reward for showing favour to the Complainant, Duli Chand, by getting him a licence for temporary sale of fire-works and as such had committed offences punishable under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 of Indian Penal Code.

(3.) . According to complainant on 25.10.1975, he had gone to the Court of the S.D.M., Patel Nagar in Room No. 25, New Courts, Tis Hazari and presented his application for the grant of licence for the sale of fire-works to accused Teka Ram, who was working as Reader to the SDM Court. The accused, Teka Ram told the complainant that the date for issuance of licence had already expired. After some time the accused again called the complainant and told him that he would have to spend Rs.30.00 if he wanted to have the said licence. The accused agreed to accept Rs.15.00 by way of bribe from the complainant. The complainant had paid Rs.7.00 and told him that he would bring the balance amount of Rs.8.00 after some time. The accused then accepted the application for grant of licence. The complainant went home to bring the remaining amount of Rs.8.00 to be paid to the accused. The complainant, went to the Anti Corruption Branch and gave his complaint statement, Exhibit Public Witness -9/A which was recorded by Inspector K.L. Sethi.