JUDGMENT Shiv Narayan Dhingra, J.
1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 21.07.1997 and order on sentence dated 22.7.1997 of the Special Judge convicting the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short, the Act) and sentencing him to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of one and a half years under Section 161 of the IPC with a fine of Rs. 2000/- and Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of three and a half years under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act with a fine of Rs. 3000/-.
2. Brief facts relevant for purpose of deciding this appeal are that the complainant Baldev Singh Gill(PW-6) lived as a tenant in Flat No.C-4/132, Safdarjung Development Area. One of his electric meter got burnt on 2nd September, 1988. He made a report of the same to DESU on telephone and then he made contact with appellant who was working as Inspector in the Office of DESU at Green Park, New Delhi for replacement of his burnt meter. The appellant told him that he would get the meter changed but the meters were in short supply. However, if he pays Rs. 600/- as 'Sewapani', he would get the meter changed. He also advised the complainant that instead of original meter of 10 Amp., he would get installed a meter of 30 Amp. at the premises of the complainant on his making an application for the same. The meter was replaced on 7.9.1988. However, after replacement of meter, the complainant received telephone call from the appellant demanding Rs. 600/- as 'Sewapani'. On 8th September, 1988, the appellant again contacted the complainant and threatened him that in case he did not pay Rs. 600, as demanded, before closing of the office hours on next date, his electric supply would be disconnected. After receiving this threat, the complainant approached Anti Corruption Branch on the morning of 9.9.1988 and lodged his complaint Ex.PW6/A. A raiding party was organized and Mr. S.P. Chaudhari, who was Zonal Employment Officer at Pusa, was joined as panch witness. The complainant gave six currency notes of Rs. 100 each to Inspector. The same were treated with phenolphthalein and demonstration about the reaction of phenolphthalein with sodium carbonate solution, was given to the complainant and the panch witness. Treated currency notes were handed over to complainant with instructions to give the same to the appellant on his bribe demand. The panch witness Mr. S.P. Chaudhari was told to remain with the complainant and to listen to the talks between the complainant and appellant and on being satisfied that money had been demanded and paid, give a signal by moving his hands on the head. After giving these instructions, the raiding party reached Green Park Office of the appellant. The complainant and the panch witness were sent ahead. Rest of the raiding party remained at some distance. The appellant met complainant outside the gate of his office. On seeing the complainant with panch witness, he said Aap Aa Gaye and made enquiries about Mr. S.P. Chaudhary. The complainant introduced Mr. S.P. Chaudhary as another tenant in the same building whose meter was also burnt. The appellant told the complainant to give Sewapani first and he would talk to Mr. S.P. Chaudhary later on. The complainant gave treated currency notes to the appellant. The appellant accepted the money in his right hand and put it in the left front pocket of his shirt. After observing all this panch witness, gave signal to the raiding party and raiding party reached the spot and introduced itself to the appellant and told that as per complaint, he had received bribe of Rs. 600/-. The appellant remained quite. Inspector Kanwal Singh (PW-9) recovered the money from the front left pocket of shirt of the appellant. The numbers of the currency notes tallied with the pre-raid report. The right hand wash and the shirt pocket wash solution of the appellant turned pink. The same were sent for Chemical analysis. The report showed that the bottles gave positive test of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. After obtaining sanction and completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant.
3. Learned trial court, after appreciating evidence and considering the entire material which had come on record, came to conclusion that the charge against the appellant stood proved and offence under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Act stood proved against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
4. The prosecution case was fully supported by complainant (PW-6) and Shri S.P. Chaudhary (PW-7). PW-2 Mr. Darshan Kumar produced the electricity complaint register, Ex.PW2/A, where the complaint of the complainant about failing of electricity meter was recorded. PW-3 Shri A.K. Chaturvedi, Inspector D.E.S.U is witness of the seizure of the register Ex.PW2/A vide memo Ex.PW3/A. PW-4 Narinder Kumar Khari Junior Clerk, DESU handed over documents Ex.PW4/1 to Ex.PW4/3 to the Investigating Officer. PW4/1 is a report regarding burning of a single-phased meter of the complainant. The said report was addressed to Mr. Krishan Kapoor (PW-5) Assistant Zonal Engineer and it was recorded that that appellant was directed to meet the complainant for further necessary action. PW4/2 is a letter addressed to Shri S.K. Bedi (appellant) by AXN, directing appellant to replace the meter and arrange to send the particulars for transmission to the department. Ex.PW4/3 is the report that the burnt meter has been changed on 7th September, 1988 and it is singed by the appellant. PW-5 proved the appointment of the appellant in DESU at given point of time as Inspector by the General Manager. PW8 is the Investigating Officer. PW-9 is another officer of raiding party and PW-10 is the Secretary to Chairman, Delhi Vidyut Board who, at the relevant time, was working as a Secretary to General Manager DVB and proved the sanction for prosecution accorded by Shri R.C. Ilango who had retired and left the country.
5. PW-6 complainant deposed on the lines of his complaint that a sum of Rs. 600 was demanded from him by appellant for changing the meter. He deposed that after meter was got changed and a new meter of 30 AMP was installed, the appellant started making telephone calls for demanding Rs. 600. He kept putting off the appellant. On 8th September, 1988 at 5 pm, appellant contacted him on telephone and threatened him that in case he did not give Rs. 600/- 'Sewapani' to him by the end of office hours on next day, his electric connection shall be disconnected. Since he faced difficulty about his electric connection earlier also, he told the appellant that he would meet him but he lodged a report with Anti corruption Branch on next day morning i.e. 09.09.1988. The witness, thereafter, deposed how the raiding party was prepared and how the panch witness was associated and how the entire procedure was explained to him. After holding pre-raid proceedings, the raiding party along with panch witness and himself, left the Anti Corruption Branch at 2.15 pm and reached Green Park, DESU Office. He and Mr. S.P. Chaudhary went to DESU Office while other raiding party members took position nearby and when appellant asked him to give Sewapani, he handed him over six one hundred treated currency notes and seeing this, panch the witness gave signal to the raiding party. The raiding party conducted raid and introduced itself to the appellant and recovery of bribe money was made and appellant's hand wash solution and pocket wash turned pink, the same was put in bottles. To the same effect, is the testimony of PW-7 who had associated with raid and accompanied the complainant. PW-7 also stated that the appellant specifically stated AA Gaye Ho, Pahle Aap Apni Sewa To Kare, on which the complainant took out the treated currency notes and gave it to the appellant who took the same in his right hand and put in left side shirt pocket and after that he gave signal to the raiding party and the money was recovered from the appellant. PW-8 Mr. B.M. Sharma, Inspector a member of the raiding party testified to the effect that when complainant and panch witness were sent to DESU Office, he went along with other members of the raiding party went with them and waited nearby for the signal and when signal was received Inspector Karnail Singh disclosed his identity to the appellant and told him that he had accepted Rs. 600 as bribe. The appellant kept mum. Inspector Karnail Singh offered his search to the appellant, to which the appellant declined. Thereafter, treated currency notes of Rs. 600/- were recovered from the appellant and hand wash and shirt wash solution of the appellant was taken in separate bottles, which turned pink. The said solution was put in bottles and sealed. Shirt of the appellant was also seized and sealed by the investigating officer. Seal was given to panch witness. Inspector Karnail Singh, who was heading the raiding party, after arrest of the appellant, handed over investigation to him. PW-9 also deposed on the same lines supporting the prosecution case and proved the recovery of bribe money of Rs. 600 from the appellant. All the four witnesses were cross examined at great length but their testimony could not be shaken in any manner.
6. It is argued by learned Counsel for the appellant that there were several contradictions in the testimony of PW-6, PW7, PW-8 and PW-9, due to which these witnesses were not reliable. The counsel further argued that PW-6 did not give proper reply as to when he had deposited the security for installing meter, whether he deposited it or not and he had been changing his stand about security deposit. Similarly his testimony regarding making application was also not trustworthy. He submitted that the family members of the complainant, who had also allegedly received telephone calls from the appellant, were not examined in the court. It is submitted that there was no occasion for appellant to demand bribe since the meter in question had already been installed and once the meter had been installed, the same could not be disconnected by the appellant, so the question of giving threats by the appellant could not arise. It is also submitted that the panch witness was not a trustworthy witness. He could not have heard the conversation between the appellant and the complainant. Learned Counsel also tried to show that the meter security for the complainant was deposited by the appellant from his own pocket and the complainant had only come to pay the security deposit and no bribe was involved in it.
7. Cross examination on behalf of the appellant would show that the appellant had not taken the defense that he received Rs. 600/- from the complainant against security deposited by him for change for meter, which he paid from his own pocket. In fact, there is no suggestion to this effect given to complainant neither it is the case of the appellant that the security deposit for the meter was Rs. 600/-. The security deposit for replacement of meter, at that time, it appears, was Rs. 273 and the meter could not be replaced unless the security was deposited in advance or the amount of security deposit was to be recovered in the bill itself. It is true that the complainant had not specifically answered about the security deposit but the security deposit was never an issue before the court. The issue before the court was whether the complainant was being harassed by making telephone calls and whether the bribe money was demanded from him and if the same was accepted by the appellant. On these points, there are no contradictions in the testimony of complainant. The complainant gave positive testimony as to how the bribe was being demanded by appellant by making telephone calls. There is no suggestion given to the complainant that no such telephone calls were made. Rather the stand of the appellant was that the family members of the complainant who received telephone calls, were not produced as witnesses. It is not denied that on the date when raid was conducted, complainant had handed over this money to the appellant which was recovered from the appellant by the raiding party. The appellant, during cross examination, gave suggestion to PW-6 that he was falsely implicated in this bribe case because of enmity since the complainant was indulging in theft of electricity and the appellant had threatened to report about the theft of electricity. It was also suggested to the complainant that his father was a DSP in CBI and the police officers knew him well and he got the appellant falsely implicated. In fact, the suggestions given by the appellant in the cross examination of the witnesses do not suggest if any specific defense taken by the appellant. If it is believed that the appellant had threatened the complainant of reporting the matter regarding theft of electricity, then there is more reason to believe that the appellant demanded bribe since there was no theft of electricity on the part of complainant because before replacing the burnt meter, an inspection of the premises of the complainant was carried out at the instance of DESU Office to find out if the meter was burnt and report was submitted that the meter had been burnt. If there had been any theft of electricity, it would have been reported by the person who had gone to inspect the burnt meter that there was theft of electricity. Still if threat was being given by appellant of registering a case of theft of electricity that fortifies the case of prosecution.
8. The contradictions to which counsel for appellant has pointed out are not material contradictions neither there are contradictions in respect of the question in issue. Such contradictions do not discard the trustworthiness of the witnesses, neither the court can throw out the case of the prosecution on small contractions here and there.
9. The plea of counsel for accused is that since meter had already been installed and the alleged demand of bribe was made after installation of meter therefore no case was made out Under Section 5(1)(d) of P.C.A. or Under Section 161 IPC. This plea must fail. Section 5(1)(d) reads as under:
5. Criminal misconduct in discharge of official duty- (1) (a) x x x (b) x x x (c) x x x (d) if he, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage. 10. The appellant misused his position as inspector of DESU and obtained bribe on the threat that he would get electricity of complainant house disconnected if 'sewapani' as demanded for replacing burnt meter is not paid. 11. In view of my foregoing discussion, I find no force in the appeal and the appeal is liable to the dismissed. Same is dismissed as such.
12. Learned Counsel for the appellant argued that the sentence awarded to the appellant was too harsh and the court should take a lenient view. I consider that the court cannot show leniency towards corrupt persons. Corruption has spread in our society like cancer. Today the situation has become so worse that no department of the Government is free from corruption. According to an estimate, India is regarded as one of the top ten corrupt countries in the world. Corrupt persons have brought our country to great disrepute. I consider that the corrupts must be dealt with strictly according to law and no leniency should be shown while awarding them sentence. I find no ground to reduce the sentence of the appellant. The prayer is accordingly declined.