S.S. Bedi vs State
2008 Latest Caselaw 1062 Del

        IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

                   CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 17 of 1984

                                        Reserved on: May 24, 2008
                                        Date of decision: July 18, 2008

        SUKHBIR SINGH BEDI                          ..... APPELLANT
                                     Through: Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, Senior
                                     Advocate with Ms. Neelam Grover
                                     and Mr. Mahesh Pradhan, Advocates

                         versus

        STATE                                      .....RESPONDENT
                                     Through: Mr. Pawan Behl, APP

        CORAM:
        HON'BLE DR. JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

                                  JUDGMENT

1. Whether Reporters of local papers may be allowed to see the judgment? Yes

2. To be referred to the Reporter or not? Yes

3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes in Digest?

Dr. S. Muralidhar, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23 rd

December 1983 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in C.C.

No.50/81convicting the appellant under Section 5 (2) read with

Section 5 (i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 ('PC Act')

and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') and sentencing him

to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment ('RI') for the offences

under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1)(d) PC Act and a fine of

Rs.500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for

further six months. The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year

RI for the offence under Section 161 IPC.

2. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Sikander Lal

Kumar, a resident of 7/20, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was one of the

owners and proprietors of Chinar restaurant which had an outlet each

in Connaught Place and Moti Nagar. At around 8.30 pm on 23 rd June

1980 the accused appellant Sardar Saheb @ Bedi, Assistant Engineer

(Enforcement) of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking ('DESU')

along with another person approached him at his restaurant in Moti

Nagar. The accused questioned Sikander Lal about using an air

conditioner despite there being a ban on its use. The accused reminded

him that this had happened despite his visiting the restaurant 15 days

earlier and cautioning the Manager, Bhushan. Sikander Lal informed

the accused that he was aware of the ban but that a senior officer of

DESU had said that that in a restaurant without windows it was

permissible to use an air conditioner. When shown the notification to

that effect, the accused observed that there was nothing new about the

notification; that he was any way going to pass an order disconnecting

the electricity and that the complainant was free to seek clarification

from any Court or officer in this regard. Faced with the predicament

of the resultant substantial loss of business, the complainant asked the

accused to suggest a via media as to how he could continue to use the

air conditioner in the restaurant. According to the complainant, the

accused then demanded a bribe of Rs.1,000. A bargain was struck at

Rs.700/- on the condition that this fact should not be brought to the

notice of the Inspector of the accused or otherwise the accused would

be compelled to share this amount with his Inspector. Upon the

complainant agreeing, the accused demanded that the payment be

made at once. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.400/- to the accused

and promised to pay the balance later. The accused then informed the

complainant that he was a resident of Paharganj and he would collect

the remaining amount at the Connaught Circus restaurant on 26 th June

1980 around 3 or 4 pm.

3. The complainant then approached the Anti Corruption Branch on

26th June 1980 at about 11.45 am. His statement was recorded by

Inspector Balraj Nanda PW-12 who made arrangement for the panch

witnesses Shri H.C. Sharma, PW-7 and Shri C.D. Sapra, PW-8. The

complainant supplied three currency notes of Rs.100/- each to PW-12

Shri Balraj Nanda. The said currency notes were treated with

phenolphthalein powder. The complainant kept the treated currency

notes in the front pocket of his bush-shirt. PW-12 and PW-8 washed

their hands. The complainant was asked to pass on the said currency

notes to the accused after talking a bit loudly and to indicate that it

was the balance payment of the bribe. The panch witnesses were

asked to remain near the complainant to hear the talk and observe the

passing on of the money to the accused. They were advised to give a

sign by rubbing their heads with their hand as soon as they were

satisfied that the bribe transaction was concluded. This all was

incorporated in the document Ex.PWB.

4. At around 1.40 pm PW-12 organized a raiding party consisting of

Inspector Kishan Chand PW-13, Inspector Vijay Malik, PW-11, Shri

Narain Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector, Constables Shankar Dass,

Mahender Singh and Jang Bahadur besides the complainant and the

panch witnesses. The raiding party had reached the Chinar restaurant

at Connaught Circus at 2.05 pm on 26th June 1980. It was thereafter

decided that the complainant would sit in his cabin along with Shri

H.C. Sharma, PW-7 who would play the role of an accountant.

5. In the evidence of the complainant Sikander Lal the events that

transpired thereafter have been described in some detail. The accused

reached the hotel at near about 3 or 3.15 pm. The complainant and the

accused sat on the first floor in the office. The accused was

accompanied by one more person who remained outside. An order

was placed for a cold drink. The accused then enquired about his

account whereupon the complainant reminded him that the bargain

had been settled at Rs.700/- and that he should accept the remaining

amount of Rs.300/-. The complainant then handed over the said

amount of Rs.300/-. The accused demanded a further sum of Rs.50/-

which the complainant refused. According to the complainant, the

accused had accepted the tainted currency notes in his right hand and

then kept the same in the pocket of his bush-shirt. The complainant

then gave a signal and the raiding party rushed upstairs. The Inspector

asked the accused to raise his hands. On being asked whether he had

accepted the bribe money from the complainant, the accused kept

quiet. A little thereafter the accused told the Inspector that he had not

accepted any bribe. The right hand of the accused was dipped in the

colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The wash

was transferred into neat and clean bottle, which was labeled, sealed

and signed by the panch witnesses. Pocket of the bush-shirt was also

dipped in the colourless solution which also turned pink. This was

transferred into another bottle. The accused was arrested and a

personal search memo was prepared.

6. Before the learned trial court, the prosecution examined 13

witnesses and on behalf of the defence 16 witnesses were examined.

At the end of trial, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that

the defence set up by the accused was not believable and that the guilt

of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial

court proceeded to sentence the appellant as indicated in the first

paragraph of this judgment.

7. Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the

Appellant, first submitted that the evidence of PW-6 (the complainant)

contained several material contradictions and that he was an

untrustworthy witness. He submits that the initial version of the

complainant in his statement to the police was that the bribe had been

demanded from him whereas while deposing in the court he stated

that the bribe had been demanded by the accused through the Manager

of the complainant's restaurant. Mr. Tulsi assailed the conclusion of

the trial court that this was not a material contradiction. He points out

that statement of the complainant that it was the Manager who

informed him of the demand of bribe by the accused constituted

hearsay and therefore was inadmissible. In other words, on the

material aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe the case of the

prosecution rested on hearsay. He relied upon the judgment in

Duraisami v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 SCC (Cri) 1508. On the

other hand Mr. Saxena, learned APP supported the conclusion drawn

by the trial court that this apparent contradiction was not a material

one. There was no motive for the police to falsely implicate the

appellant. The evidence of PW-6 that the demand of Rs.1,000/- made

by the accused through the Manager was consistent with the case of

the prosecution on demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant

when seen in the light of the subsequent events which have been

proved beyond reasonable doubt.

8. This Court had perused the record and is inclined to concur with the

conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the contradiction was not

material enough to entirely discredit the version of PW 6. This has

also to be seen in the light of the subsequent event of the accused

meeting the complainant at an appointed hour at the restaurant in

Connaught Place. There were two parts to the transaction in the

present case where the demand and part acceptance was on one date

and the acceptance of the remaining amount of bribe on a later date.

The evidence in relation to both parts of the transaction when seen as

a whole fully supports the case of the prosecution. The prosecution

case in this regard stands proved beyond reasonable doubt through the

evidence of PW 6 which is both cogent and reliable. PW 7 and PW 8

support the version of PW 6. Although it was sought to be suggested

that PWs 7 and 8 are not independent witnesses, their cross

examination has not elicited anything to discredit their version. The

decision in Duraisami appears to have turned on its own facts and can

have no application in the instant case.

9. It was then submitted that the complainant was not a reliable

witness as he had an axe to grind against the appellant in relation to

the earlier incident of 6th June 1980 when a challan was issued. Also,

the complainant had a nexus with the police. Mr.Tulsi made elaborate

reference to the past events, as narrated by the accused in his

statement under Section 313 CrPC (which included a lengthy written

statement dated 8th June 1983). He submitted that the enmity with the

police officers in the past was the motive for their falsely implicating

the accused. He referred to the evidence of DWs.4,8,15 and 16 to

suggest the alternative version that the accused came to the Chinar

Restaurant at Connaught Place on 26th June, 1980 for the purpose of

an amicable settlement between him and the police officers. It was

submitted that even if there was a ring of truth in what the accused

was saying, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused.

Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ganga Kumar Srivastava v.

State of Bihar (2005) 6 SCC 211 and M.Abbas v. State of Kerala

(2001) 10 SCC 103.

10. This Court has carefully perused the records of the case and the

depositions of the witnesses referred to. The trial court too had after

examining the evidence come to the conclusion that there was no

reason to presume that each of the police officers involved in the

investigation of the case was inimical to the accused or were acting at

the behest of the complainant. Further, the trial court concluded that

the complainant had met the accused only three days prior to the date

of the raid and it was unlikely that they had developed such a cordial

relationship that the accused would seek his help for a settlement

between him and the police officers. This Court is inclined to concur

with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in its reasoned

judgment. The cross-examination of many of these witnesses is not

supportive of the defence version at all.

11. It was next submitted that the prosecution story as regards the raid

had too many inconsistencies and at best it was a paper transaction not

corroborated by the prosecution witnesses themselves. It was

submitted that the actual alleged handing over of the balance amount

of Rs. 300 is stated to have taken place on the first floor which did not

have a window and when there was a power failure. Accordingly it is

submitted that there was not enough light to even witness the

proceedings. It is submitted that the sodium carbonate solution which

was supposed to be pink in colour was, at the time of recording of the

deposition of PW-8 on 11th January, 1993, colourless and therefore,

prosecution was unable to prove the fact that the accused had himself

handled the notes which were covered with the phenol phthalein

powder. As regards the absence of light in the room, this court finds

that this line of argument was not adopted during the cross-

examination of the concerned prosecution witnesses. In any event

nothing has been elicited from them to suggest that the room was so

dark and that the door was also shut to make it impossible to anyone

to witness what transpired there. As regards the sodium corbonate

solution turning colourless, as rightly observed by the trial court, the

evidence of the defence witness Dr. Siddharth Ghosh as well as Shri

C.D. Sapra (PW-8) this is quite probable with the passage of time.

This Court is satisfied that the conclusion of the trial court in this

behalf is on a correct analysis of the evidence and does not call for

interference. No other points were urged.

12. For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity

in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. The

appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.

S. MURALIDHAR, J.

18th July, 2008 rk