KAMAL SINGH Vs. STATE CBI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) IN this appeal, challenge is to impugned judgment/order of 22nd and 23rd march, 1999 of the learned Special Judge, Delhi, who has convicted and sentenced the Appellant, who was Phone Inspector with MTNL, for having accepted bribe of rs. 3,000/- on 10th day of January, 1994, from the complainant (PW-2) for providing new telephone connection.

(2.) PROSECUTION version, emerging from the record of this case, is that on 7th january, 1994, complainant (PW-2) of this case had contacted SDO (PW-9) of MTNL exchange at Okhla to expedite the installation of a new telephone connection and he had told the complainant to contact Appellant/accused who was the Phone inspector and on the next day, complainant contacted the Appellant/accused at mtnl Okhla Exchange and he was told by the Appellant/accused that he would have to pay Rs. 3,000/- for ensuring early installation of the new telephone connection at the said residence and for the purpose of paying the bribe, complainant was called by the Appellant/accused at his office on 10th January, 1994, at about 11. 30 AM.

(3.) ON the aforesaid date, a trap was laid by the CBI upon the complaint made by the complainant (PW-2) regarding demand of bribe by the Appellant/accused. Before conducting the raid, the bribe money consisting of 30 GC notes of rs. 100/- each were treated with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter a demonstration was given to the shadow witnesses. Then, the raiding team left the team for the MTNL Exchange at Okhla, Delhi and the trap team took their position outside the aforesaid office and complainant alongwith shadow witness (PW-3)proceeded to the office of the Appellant/accused and the shadow witness was told to give pre-appointed signal, when the bribe money is demanded and accepted by the Appellant/accused. In his office, Appellant/accused demanded the bribe from the complainant and had accepted it outside his office, near the staircase, and upon receiving of the pre-determined signal, the Trap Laying Officer (PW-8) with his team came at the spot and had disclosed his identity and had challenged the appellant/accused that he had demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant and Appellant/accused became confused and kept mum. Thereafter, shadow witness (PW-3) told the Trap Laying Officer (PW-8) that the appellant/accused had accepted the bribe money with his left hand and had kept it in the left side pant pocket and the complainant (PW-2) also confirmed it. Then on the directions of Trap Laying Officer (PW-8), shadow witness (PW-3)recovered the bribe money from the pant pocket of the Appellant/accused and the serial number of the recovered GC notes were tallied by the shadow witness (PW-3) with the serial numbers of the GC notes mentioned in the handing over memo and they had tallied. Colourless solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and appellant/accused was asked to dip his left hand fingers in it and on doing so, the colour of the solution turned into pink. Similarly, left side pant pocket was also dipped into such solution and its colour also turned into pink and the said solution were transferred into bottles and were seized and sealed with the seal of CBI. Recovery memos, site plan of the spot, etc. were prepared. The exhibits, i. e. , the sealed and seized bottles were kept in safe custody and were sent for analysis and they tested positive. Sanction for the prosecution of the appellant/accused was obtained. After completion of investigation, Appellant was charge sheeted for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of read with section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.