JAGAT RAM Vs. CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the order dated 22.07.2002 passed by Special Judge, Chandigarh in C.C. No.116/3/26.3.96/12/7/2K by which the appellant was convicted for offence under Sec. 7, 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and fine of Rs. 1000.00 for each offences and in default to undergo further imprisonment for a period of detention already undergone by him.

(2.) Briefly stated the prosecution case is that the appellant-accused Jagat Ram was posted as Director Postal Services, Punjab Circle in the office of the Chief Post Master General, Sector 17, Chandigarh. He had demanded Rs. 10,000.00 as bribe amount in two instalments from Ms. Suman, Manager and Harish Nanda, Managiner Director of Pearless Electronics Private Limited for not returning the material i.e. the postal repellers and not claiming any recovery from them as per the guarantee clause. Out of the agreed amount Rs. 10,000.00 instalment of Rs. 5,000.00 was paid on 011994 and balance was to be paid on 05.11994. Case was registered against the appellant-accused on the basis of the written complaint of Ms. Suman and Mr. Harish Nanda. Thereafter, a trap was arranged and the trap party caught the appellant while collecting Rs. 5,000.00 from the complainant at Ghazal Restaurant where the appellant-accused had called them for receiving balance amount of Rs. 5,000.00. The necessary documentation was made after arrest of the appellant was made. Investigation was completed and thereafter challan was filed in the trial Court. The appellant was put on trial and the trial court finally convicted him.

(3.) In support of the appeal, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case of demand and acceptance by the appellant by legal and proper evidence and, therefore, the appellant was entitled to be acquitted. He then contended that appellant had examined defence witnesses who had clearly stated enmity between the complainant Suman as her uncle who was working under the appellant was chargesheeted by the appellant in number of departmental cases and that is why in order to take revenge the trap was arranged by Suman on the instructions of her uncle. Further the evidence to that effect has been completely ignored by the trial court. The learned counsel for the appellant then submitted that the prosecution miserably failed to prove the demand and acceptance and at any rate the conviction could not have been recorded. He then submitted that the trial court did not even frame any point for determination and proceeded to decide the case in haphazard manner. He then prayed for acquittal of the appellant-accused or in the alternative for remand of the case to the trial Court since according to him the trial court has not framed any point for determination.