DASHRATH SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. C.B.I.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE present appeal is directed against the judgment and order on conviction dated 31.05.2001 passed in C.C. No. 53/95 and R.C. No. 25(A)/ 95-DLI/ CBI/ ACB/ New Delhi, convicting the appellant to Rigorous Imprisonment (hereinafter referred to as, R.I.) for two years and a fine of Rs. 40,000/- under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In default of the payment of fine, the appellant was to undergo a further simple imprisonment for a period of six months.

(2.) THE facts of this case briefly stated are that as per the complainant/PW-1, in January, 1995, he was running the business of manufacturing Hosiery items under the name and style of M/s Garg Hosiery Works at premises No.A-309, Shastri Nagar, Delhi. In January, 1995, he applied for an electricity connection for the aforesaid factory in the DESU Office at Nangia Park. Inspector D.S. Chauhan (appellant herein), from DESU, visited the factory of Arun Kumar, PW-1, for inspection in February, 1995. The appellant asked the complainant/PW-1 to visit his office after ten days to find out the progress of his application. Ten days later, the complainant enquired from the appellant about the electricity connection. The appellant is stated to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 5,000/- which was negotiated by the complainant and it was agreed that Rs. 4,000/- would be paid. The appellant went to the office of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) and registered his complaint regarding the demand of a bribe. Thereafter a trap was laid and as per schedule the complainant went to the office of the appellant. Inside the office premises, the appellant directed the complainant to deposit the money with one Rajinder. As soon as Rajinder accepted the money, a pre-arranged signal was sent and Rajinder was caught on the spot. However, the appellant managed to slip away who was then arrested on 24.04.1995. A case was registered and the accused persons were tried for the offence under section 120B IPC read with Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Post trial, accused Rajinder was acquitted; however D.S. Chauhan (appellant herein) was found guilty of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification.

(3.) IT is contended that the learned Special Judge has passed the order of conviction only relying upon the sole testimony of PW-2 which alone cannot be the basis of conviction somuch so, that the learned Special Judge has not placed reliance on the evidence of the complainant as well as on the evidence of the I.O. It is further contended that in fact the Special Judge has categorically stated that no reliance can be placed on the evidence of the I.O. and it has been observed that he is a person of doubtful integrity.