ASHOK KUMAR AND ANOTHER Vs. U T , CHANDIGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment/order dated 27.03.2009/30.03.2009, in corruption case No.151 passed by the Special Judge, Chandigarh, by which, the appellants, namely Ashok Kumar and Vinod Kumar, both brothers were convicted for commission of offence punishable under Sections 120-B, 420 read with Section 120-B, 468 read with Section 120-B and 471 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short 'IPC') and sentenced them to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for five years plus fine; and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for one year, the present appeal was filed by them.

(2.) In brief, the case of the prosecution was that the Director, Transport, U.T., Chandigarh had made a complaint to the Vigilance Department stating that appellant No.2-Vinod Kumar working as an Assistant Battery Attendant in Chandigarh Transport Undertaking, Chandigarh had applied for getting his designation changed from Assistant Battery Attendant to that of Clerk. An amount of Rs. 20,000/- was to be paid by way of consideration to Rakesh Thakur, Senior Assistant. The application was forwarded, examined and by report dated 05.04.2000, the Director, Transport, Chandigarh recorded that the request of appellant No.2-Vinod Kumar for the change as desired by him could not be entertained. This letter was collected directly by appellant No.1-Ashok Kumar, the real brother of Vinod Kumar and was handed over to Rakesh Thakur. Rakesh Thakur then, prepared a note, on 19.04.2000 favoring the change of designation of Vinod Kumar. In the last line of the letter received by the office of Director, Transport, Chandigarh, on 05.04.2000, it was found that there was tampering and the words "cannot be entertained" were made as "may be entertained". In the said allegation, investigation was made. The allegations were made after completion of enquiry and thereafter, charges were filed before the trial Court. The prosecution examined number of witnesses to prove its case. The accused persons were charged for commission of offence punishable under Sections 420, 461, 468, 471, 120-B of IPC and Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 2 of PC Act. The learned trial Court, thereafter, heard the entire evidence and recorded the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence.

(3.) In so far as the present appellants are concerned, they were not convicted for offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 2 of PC Act, but were convicted as stated above.