PRADEEP JOSHI Vs. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE challenge made in this appeal is to the judgment and order dated 16.8.2005, passed by the Special Judge (Anti Corruption), II F.T.C., Nainital in Special Triable Criminal Case No. 8/2002, State v. Pradeep Joshi, whereby the learned Judge found the accused Pradeep Joshi guilty of the offence of Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for brevity, hereinafter referred to as the 'Act ') and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years nay a fine of rupees five thousand. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo one month 's additional simple imprisonment. The accused appellant was also found guilty of the offence of Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and was sentenced to undergo two years ' rigorous imprisonment nay a fine of rupees five thousand. In default of payment of fine, the accused was directed to undergo one month 's additional simple imprisonment.

(2.) THE controversy involved in this appeal revolves around a small piece of land measuring 120 sq. ft. located at Rajpur Road, Dehradun, a very significant commercial place of the town. This land was actually owned by Irrigation Department of the State Government, and the 2 lease of the same was granted to one Krishna Lal Bhatia, father of Rahul Bhatia (decoy). Krishna Lal Bhatia breathed his last on 30.3.1997, but the said piece of land, whereupon two tin sheds were built up, continued to be in possession of his son Rahul Bhatia.

(3.) IN the helm of above affairs, Rahul Bhatia moved an application on 18.5.2000 to the Executive Engineer, Irrigation Department with prayer to renew the lease of the piece of land, in question, and transfer the same in his name as his father remained no more and he was his only son. No sooner did he moved this application, his ordeal commenced at the hands of all officials of the said department, right from Class IV employees to the level of Executive Engineer i.e. the present appellant. It is alleged that for the desired task, an amount of rupees fifteen thousand was demanded from Mr. Rahul as consideration in the form of illegal gratification. Feeling aggrieved, Mr. Rahul moved an application on 27.5.2000 to the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, which is Ex. Ka-2, wherein he stated the aforesaid facts and further alleged 3 that Mr. Pradeep Joshi, Executive Engineer was demanding rupees fifteen thousand as illegal gratification for transferring the land, in question, in his name and for permitting to carry out the repair works in the shop therewithal allowing Mr. Rahul to deposit the lease rent of the shop till 31.3.2000 in the department. He also stated in his application that feeling constraint, he promised to pay rupees five thousand within a week as advance money and further assured him to pay the remaining amount after getting the work done. He stated that he did not want to part with this money illegally demanded by the accused appellant, rather he expressed his desire to get him trapped while accepting such bribe. He, accordingly, presented rupees five thousand in the form of ten currency notes, each in the denomination of rupees five hundred, whose particulars were given in the application.