SATISH KUMAR Vs. C B I

JUDGEMENT

(1.) UNDER challenge in this appeal is the judgment of conviction and order on sentence of the Special Judge dated 12. 02. 2004 and 13. 02. 2004 respectively whereby the appellant was convicted for offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for three months for offence under Section 7 of the Act and was further sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for one year and six months and pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default to further undergo Rigorous imprisonment for six months for offence under Section 13 (2) of the Act. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) APPELLANT was posted as Sub-Inspector at Police Station Nand Nagri in March, 1998. Appellant had arrested Rajesh Kumar in some case registered at Police station Nand Nagri. Rajesh Kumar happened to be the son of complainant; Smt. Anaro Devi. Complainant had filed a written complaint on 24. 03. 1998 with C. B. I. alleging that appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 4,000/- from her on 23. 03. 1998 for getting her son released on bail when she had gone to Karkardooma courts, Shahdara, Delhi on 23. 03. 1998. She was required to pay bribe money before 30. 03. 1998. Since she did not want to pay bribe money, she filed the complaint. Accordingly, a case was registered against the appellant and inspector K. Babu was entrusted with the investigation of the case. A trap was laid at the Police Station Nand Nagri. Appellant received the bribe money of rs. 4,000/- from the complainant. The currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder, when washed with solution of Sodium Carbonate, changed their colour to pink. The appellant was arrested after his hand wash and left side pocket of the pant wash also turned into pink. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against him.

(3.) THE Special Judge framed charges under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Act against the appellant and conducted the trial of the case. He found sufficient evidence against the appellant and convicted him for the said offences vide his detailed judgment dated 12. 02. 2004 Aggrieved by the said judgment and order on sentence, the present appeal has been filed.