RAKESH KUMAR Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Rakesh Kumar has challenged the judgment of conviction and sentence recorded by the trial Court for the offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act').

(2.) IT is the case of the prosecution that on 5.2.2008, the accused visited the house of the complainant in connection with the mobile phone provided to him by the company when he was serving and on the asking of the policeman he visited the police lines office where accused Rakesh Kumar met him and informed the complainant that the mobile phone was in his possession a stolen property and that he had received a complaint with respect thereto. He demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/ - as bribe and assured the complainant that he would exonerate him from the criminal case. P.W. 2 expressed his inability to pay the bribe of Rs. 1000/ -. Accused agreed to take a sum of Rs. 500/ -. A complaint was lodged with State Vigilance Bureau, Ambala as he had chosen not to give bribe to Constable Rakesh Kumar. P.W. 2 Yudhvir Singh who was the complainant, P.W. 3 Parkash Chand who was the shadow witness deputed to accompany P.W. 2, have completely turned hostile to the case of the prosecution. The trial Court chose to record conviction drawing presumption under Section 20(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(3.) LEARNED counsel for the State argued that the complaint lodged by P.W. 2 gave a graphic account of demand of bribe made by the accused. Immediately after accepting the bribe, the recovery had been effected in the presence of P.W. 6 Ishwar Chand, Tehsildar, Kalka. Inasmuch, as the acceptance has been established, the trial Court has rightly invoked the presumption under Section 20(1) of the Act and convicted the accused.