MANOHAR LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The accused/appellant (Manohar Lal) has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, vide his judgment and order dated 31-12-1998 under S. 5(2) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 BK and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in case of non-payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment. The accused/appellant was further convicted for offence u/S.161, RPC and sentenced to suffer two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine also to undergo three months' simple imprisonment. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently. Aggrieved by the judgment and order propounded by the learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption, Jammu, the accused/appellant has impugned its correctness in this appeal.

(2.) The case of the prosecution, enumerated from the record, in narration, is that Narinder Sharma, complainant, had applied for telephone connection and deposited Rs. 1,000/- towards security in the office of Telecom District Manager (TDM), Jammu in the year 1992. The complainant was informed by the Telephone Department through a communication dated 31-8-1992 with regard to his name figuring at Serial No. 2678 in the waiting list. The complainant, however, somewhere on 31-3-1994 learnt that the telephone connections up to Serial No. 2800 in the waiting list have been sanctioned. He, accordingly, approached the office of the TDM, Jammu and met Mr. Satish Bakhri, Junior Telecom Officer there. When the advice note of the complainant was not traceable, Mr. Satish Bakhri advised him to check the same from the office of the TDM, Rani Talab, Jammu and secure the advice note. It is further stated that the complainant after securing the advice note on 5-4-1994 again went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer (Phones) SDO (P), Gandhi Nagar, Jammu and, while in search of Mr. Satish Bakhri somebody told him to meet Manohar Lal, cashier-cum-clerk, posted in the said office. The complainant when met Manohar Lal, the latter told him to apply for the change of address as the same was not clear. The complainant made an application and secured the approval of the SDO (P) with regard to the change of address on 6-5-1994, and, thereafter, accompanied by Suresh Kumar, his friend, again met the accused/ appellant in the office. Further case of the prosecution is that the accused/appellant demanded Rs. 600/- from the complainant for providing the telephone connection. A written complaint EXPW 1/2 with regard to the demand of Rs. 600/- as bribe by the accused/appellant was, however, made by the complainant to Dy. SP, CBI, Jammu. The complainant, however, presented six hundred rupee notes to the Dy. SP, CBI and the latter noted down their numbers and then treated the currency notes with phenol-phthalein powder and thereafter gave back to the complainant, Narinder Sharma, which he kept in the pocket of his shirt. P.W. Jagdev Singh accompanied him as a shadow witness as complainant's friend. The complainant was asked to give the signal by combing his hair with fingers of either hand on the acceptance of the bribe money by the accused/appellant. Elias Rapsang, Photographic Officer and P.W. Jagdev Singh were the independent witnesses of raiding party that proceeded to the office of the SDO (P), Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. P.W. Jagdev Singh accompanying the complainant went inside the room and other members of the raiding party in their position remained outside the office of the SDO (P), Gandhi Nagar, Jammu. The complainant gave Rs. 600/- to the accused/appellant and the latter accepted the bribe money with his left hand and after counting the bribe money he put the same on the table under the stamp pad. The complainant when gave signal as fixed earlier during pre-trap exercise, the raiding party went inside the room and the complainant pointed towards the accused/appellant to whom he had paid the money and he was placed under arrest. Thereafter, both the hands of the accused/appellant were dipped into the two separate glasses containing sodium carbonate solution with the result the white solution turned into pink. The bribe money recovered from the table of the accused/appellant was seized by Satish Chander, Dy. SP, Investigating Officer, CBI and the number of the currency notes were also tallied with those mentioned in the handing over memo. A case was registered by the CBI against the accused/appellant for offences under S. 161, RPC and S. 5(2) read with S. 5(2) (d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and investigation ensued. On completion of the investigation and after securing the requisite sanction, the accused/appellant was sent up to face the trial before the competent Court. The trial Court, after holding the trial and hearing the parties, held the accused/appellant guilty of committing the offences under S. 5(2) read with S. 5(2)(d) of the Jammu and Kashmir Prevention of Corruption Act, 2006 and also under S.161,R.P.C. and sentenced him accordingly.

(3.) Mr. Sunil Hali, learned counsel appearing for the accused/appellant, at the threshold, challenged the legality of the Judgment passed by the trial Court on the ground that the material independent witnesses, namely, Suresh Kumar and Elias Rapsang, though were associated with the trap proceedings have been kept back and they have not been examined leaving no pre-trap evidence except that of the complainant. "Keeping the money on a table by the accused after receiving bribe is unusual and against the normal conduct." No witness from the locality has been associated in the trap proceedings. Mr. A.K. Bhat, sitting in the same room on the other table was not made a witness in the case and all these circumstances when taken together Improbabilise the prosecution case. Mr. Hali further submitted that even the sanction has been granted without application of mind as the CBI had sent draft sanction to the sanctioning authority which amounts to influence and pollute the mind of the sanctioning authority and, thus, renders the sanction invalid. Whereas Mr. K. N. Bhat, learned counsel appearing for the State, argued that the trial Court has dealt with every aspect of the matter and the essential ingredients have been proved by the credible testimony of the witnesses examined by the prosecution during the trial and, thus, the judgment and order impugned does not suffer from any illegality, frailty or factual error that requires interference in this appeal.