OM PRAKASH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgement and order dated September 28, 1997 passed by a Special Judge, Tis Hazari, Delhi whereby the learned lower court found the convict/appellant (hereinafter referred to as the appellant for the sake of brevity) guilty under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 100.00 . In case of his failure to clear the fine he was further directed to undergo RI for two months. The appellant was also found guilty under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and was sentenced to undergo RI for one year.

(2.) Brief facts which led to the presentation of the present appeal are as under: that one Sanjay Lalwani (Public Witness 1) was studying in B.Com. IInd Year, Hindu College, Delhi University, Delhi. He was in that capacity in occupation of Room No. 80 of the Hostel. He was also having a motor cycle bearing registration No. RMM 6616 for his convenience. On August 20, 1976 at about 5.30 p.m. he was going to Mall Road via Malka Ganj, Delhi on the aforementioned motor cycle. While he was passing Maurice Nagar crossing all of a sudden a cyclist came from the opposite direction. Despite his best possible efforts he was not in a position to avoid the collision in between his motor cycle and the said cycle and his motor cycle hit the cycle. The cycle rider Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma (Public Witness 9) sustained some injuries on his person as a result of the said accident. He moved ahead despite the said accident. However, he stopped his motor cycle and returned to the place of the accident. He found over there two police officers in uniform, one of them was a constable i.e the present appellant, and the other one was a Sub Inspector of police known as Pal Singh (who has been acquitted by the lower Court). They caught hold of Sanjay Lalwani. He was asked to park his motor cycle by the side of the road. He requested them that he would like to take the injured Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma to the hospital for the purpose of treatment. However, Shri Mahesh Chand Sharma declined to accept his offer on the ground that the injuries were ordinary and simple. The appellant and the said Sub Inspector Pal Singh thereupon asked him to give them Rs. 100.00 to finish off the matter. However, he told them that he was not in possession of Rs. 100.00 . He was having at that time only Rs. 40.00 . The police officers referred to above, refused to accept less than Rs. 100.00 . They further suggested that they should be paid Rs. 40.00 in the present set of circumstances and he should make arrangement for the remaining amount. They also asked him to leave his motor cycle over there (at the spot) and to bring the remaining amount. He was assured that after he had paid the amount he would be free to take back his motor cycle. He thereupon delivered four currency notes of Rs. 10.00 each to the appellant who on his turn handed over the same to SI Pal Singh. SI Pal Singh thereupon recorded his statement and that of Public Witness 9 Mahesh Chand Sharma. He then returned to the hostel. He is against making payment by way of bribe. Consequently he along with his friend Shri Gajender Singh (Public Witness 3), a student of B.A. IInd Year, St. Stephen's College, approached the officers of Anti Corruption Branch.

(3.) The statement of Public Witness 1 Sanjay Lalwani was recorded by Shri M.L. Sahni, Deputy S.P. vide Ex Public Witness 1/A. He produced six currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 10.00 each. The numbers of the said currency notes were recorded in the raid report Ex. Public Witness 1/B. The same were thereafter returned to Public Witness 1 with the instructions to pass on the same to the appellant on demand. He was further instructed that the money was to be passed on after talks with the appellant in such a way so as to indicate that the same was being accepted by the appellant by way of bribe. Public Witness 3 Gajender Singh was asked to follow the complainant closely to hear the talks and to witness the payment of the bribe money. Public Witness 1 was further told to give a signal to the raiding party by trying to start his motor cycle on the passing of the money to the appellant.