RAJKUMAR AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. against the judgment dtd. 13/4/2017 passed by the learned Session Judge, Special Court, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Sri Ganganagar in Sessions Case No. (36/09) 106/2013 whereby the accused-appellant was convicted for the offences under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) and Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and was sentenced to suffer maximum punishment of two years' simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000.00 under Sec. 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) and one year simple imprisonment along with fine of Rs.10,000.00 for other offence under Sec. 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that the complainant PW-14 Sohanlal submitted a written complaint Ex.P-5 before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Sri Ganganagar alleging therein that his mother's so called sister (Not a blood relative), Mrs. Sita Devi had undergone an operation in a government hospital, Suratgarh on 7/12/2007 where she was operated upon by Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal who is the appellant herein. The complainant claimed that Dr. Rajkumar had asked for Rs.5000.00 as illegal gratification, out of which Rs.2500.00 was given to him at the time of operation and then, he demanded the remaining amount from the complainant as his aunt was still admitted in the hospital. However, the complainant did not wish to illegally gratify Dr. Rajkumar and his wish was to ensure that he would be caught red-handed. He filed a complaint with the ACB, Outpost Sri Ganganagar for the same and a trap operation was planned in pursuance thereof.

(3.) As alleged, upon confidential verification of the facts mentioned in the application through the tape recording, it was revealed that Dr. Rajkumar had received Rs.1000.00 at the time when the alleged recording was made and he further demanded the remaining amount of Rs.1500.00 as illegal gratification. It is alleged that as per the tape recording, the demand of bribe was verified and a transcript of the audio recording was prepared and the cassette was seized and sealed.