S M GUPTA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, Dr. S. M. Gupta, has been convicted under S.5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2006 and S. 161 of the Ranbir P.C. and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and to a fine of Rs. WO/ -; in default to undergo further simple imprisonment for a month. The appellant has also been convicted under S.5(l)(d) of the Act but no separate sentence has been passed under this section.

(2.) PUT briefly, the prosecution story is that one Ghulam Mohd. Khan, the complainant, was temporarily appointed as a Dental Technician in August 1970 at Dras pursuant to a telegram issued by the Director Health Services on 30 -7 -70. The appointment of the complainant was on ad -hoc basis because under the rules the appointment had to be confirmed by the Chairman of the Recruitment Board who was the Development Commissioner at Leh. In other words the appointment of the complainant was subject to confirmation by Mr. R. K Takkar, Dy. Commissioner cum Development Commissioner at Ladakh (hereinafter to be referred to as D.C. Takkar). After the expiry of three months, the appellant who was the District Medical Officer at Leh (hereinafter to be referred to as the DMO) allowed the complainant to continue in service and in October 1970 the complainant was transferred from Dras to Leh but his salary for the months of August and September was not released by the appellant despite repeated demands made by the complainant. It further appears that ever since his appointment the complainant approached the appellant, inter -alia, for releasing his pay, for transferring him to a suitable place and for making him permanent but every time the appellant demanded illegal gratification from the complainant, the complainant refused to oblige him and consequently the appellant is alleged to have stopped his pay for the aforesaid two months. The evidence, however, does not disclose as to what was the amount of bribe demanded by the appellant from the complainant. Finally on 24 -3 -71 the complainant again approached the appellant in his office and made a last request to him for releasing his pay, whereupon the appellant told him that this could be done only if the complainant gave the appellant Chai Pani (in Vernacular a euphemism for bribe). As the complainant had no intention to pay the bribe. he is said to have met Mr. Nomani Superintendent of Police (for the sake of brevity to be hereinafter referred to as S. P. Nomani) and narrated the entire incident to him. S.P. Nomani suggested to the appellant that he should come the next morning when he himself would take him to D.C. Takkar. On the morning of 25 -3 -71 the complainant went to D. C. Takkar and narrated the entire facts to him, namely, that the appellant had been persistently demanding bribe for releasing his pay for the months of August and September 1970. S. P. Nomani was also there. As the allegation made by the complainant concerned a senior officer, the D.C. took the extra precaution of examining the complainant separately in order to satisfy himself about the truth of the allegation made by him. After being satisfied that the allegation of the complainant was prima facie true he directed Mr. H. H. Tyabji Addl. Deputy Commr. Leh (hereinafter to be referred to as Tyabji ADM) to record the statement of the complainant. Tyabji complied with the directions of the DC, recorded the statement of the complainant and handed over the same to S.P. Nomani who in turn endorsed it to Mr. Mohd Abbas, DSP and registered a case against the accused. The said statement forms the FIR in the case.

(3.) THE second log of the prosecution relates to the trap which was laid to catch the appellant. In this connection the allegation of the prosecution was that after the complainants statement was recorded by Tyabji, ADC cum ADM the SP directed Abbas to arrange a trap to catch the accused with the money which he would have accepted by the time the trap witnesses reached the office of the accused.. The complainant was also directed to pay the bribe to the accused. We might mention here that there is some evidence to show that on the was also directed to pay the bribe to the accused. The comp -24th, the appellant again asked for bribe from the complainant and asked him to come with the money to his office on the 25th. Here also the amount of money which was settled between the parties as bribe is not disclosed. Then comes the most dramatic part of the prosecution case relating to the trap. It is said that Abbas DSP without arranging for the witnesses beforehand went towards the office of the DMO (appellant) and just happened to meet Dr. Farooq and called one Sonam Turgis and requested them to act as witnesses to the trap. The DSP was accompanied by Inspector Khan. When the raiding party reached the office of the appellant they found the complainant coming out who is alleged to have informed the DSP that the money had been paid. Immediately thereafter the raiding party entered the room of the appellant and found him sitting in his office. The DSP told him that there were allegations against him that he had accepted bribe from the complainant and that he would like to take his personal search. The appellant paused a little and then produced a diary from his pocket which on being examined contained currency notes of various denominations of Rs. 50/ - and also some more money. The numbers of the notes had been recorded by the ADM before the raid and were noted down on a paper. The DSP compared the number of notes with that on the paper and thereafter prepared a seizure Memo. While the seizure Memo, was being prepared, SP Nomani also entered the room, arrested the accused and took him to the lock -up. This is briefly the case put forward by the prosecution against the appellant.