Delhi High Court
Suresh Chand Joshi vs Cbi on 21 April, 2011
Author: Rajiv Shakdher
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
% Judgment reserved on : 15.03.2011
Judgment delivered on: 21.04.2011
+ Crl.A.56/2003
SURESH CHAND JOSHI ..... APPELLANT
Vs
CBI ..... RESPONDENT
Advocates who appeared in this case:
For the Appellant : Mr. Anurag Jain, Advocate
For the Respondent : Ms Sonia Mathur & Mr. Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advocates
CORAM :-
HON'BLE MR JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
1. Whether the Reporters of local papers may
be allowed to see the judgment ? No
2. To be referred to Reporters or not ? No
3. Whether the judgment should be reported Yes
in the Digest ?
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,
1973 (hereinafter referred to as the „Code‟) is directed against the judgment dated
07.01.2003 passed by Shri M.L. Sahni, Special Judge, Tis Hazari Court, Delhi in CC
No.136/1999.
2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted for
offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the „P.C. Act‟). In
respect of offences under section 7 of the P.C. Act, the appellant has been sentenced
to simple imprisonment for a period of two years and a fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default
of payment of fine, the appellant is required to undergo a further period of
incarceration (i.e., simple imprisonment) for a further period of two months. In so
far as the appellant‟s conviction under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) of the
P.C Act is concerned, he has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a
period of three years in addition to a fine of Rs.10,000/-. In default of payment of
fine, the appellant is required to undergo a further period of simple imprisonment for
a period of three months. The case of the prosecution is briefly as follows :-
2.1 Based on a written complaint of one Sh. Kulwant Singh (PW-1) dated
06.12.1991 (Ex. PW1/C) that the appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs.10,000/- as
illegal gratification for forbearing from demolishing his house situate at 260-B,
Gali No.4, New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar, Delhi; a trap team was set up after
due verification of the ingredients of the complaint.
2.2 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) had alleged that the appellant had
demanded the bribe in two instalments of Rs.5,000/- each. The first instalment
was to be paid on that very date i.e., 06.12.1991 and the second instalment was to
be paid on 09.12.1991. The complaint also makes a reference to the fact that the
appellant had met him a couple of days before the material date i.e., 06.12.1991,
when similar threats had been made.
2.3 This complaint was received by the Superintendent of Central Bureau of
Investigation (in short, „CBI‟), ACB, Delhi. The complaint was marked to
Inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW-9). Immediately thereafter, a trap team was
formed. In the trap team, two independent witnesses i.e., Nankoo Ram (PW-4)
and Ved Pal Singh (PW-5); the employees of Ministry of Civil Supplies & Public
Distribution, were also included. Both independent witnesses were shown the
complaint dated 06.12.1991 (Ex. PW1/C). Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and Ved Pal
Singh (PW-5) after going through the complaint, satisfied themselves as regards
the ingredients of the complaint by interacting with the complainant Kulwant
Singh (PW-1).
2.4 The complainant, who had brought a sum of Rs.5,000/- in the form of 50
notes of a denomination of Rs.100/- each had their numbers recorded in the
annexure (Ex.PW1/B) appended to the Handing over Memo (Ex. PW1/A) in the
presence of Inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW-9) and the two independent witnesses
i.e., Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) amongst others. One of the
members of the trap team also gave all those present including the said
independent witnesses, a practical demonstration as to how the trap would operate.
Resultantly, the said currency notes amounting to Rs.5,000/- (hereinafter referred
to as „GC notes‟) brought by the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) were treated
with phenolphthalein powder. Nankoo Ram (PW-4) was then asked to touch the
treated GC notes with his left hand and then dip the same in a freshly made
colourless solution of sodium carbonate . The colourless solution of sodium
carbonate turned pink. It was explained to all concerned including the said
independent witnesses that the colourless solution of sodium carbonate turns pink
on coming in contact with phenolphthalein powder, which was smeared on the left
hand of Nankoo Ram. After the demonstration was over, the pink solution was
discarded. The complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) kept the treated GC notes in
the right side pocket of his trouser. It was explained to the complainant Kulwant
Singh (PW-1) that he was to hand over the same to the appellant only on a specific
demand made by him. Ved Pal Singh (PW-5), was assigned the role of a shadow
witness and thus instructed to stay close to the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1)
so that he would be able to observe the transaction which may take place between
the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and the appellant. Ved Pal Singh (PW-5)
was also told to signal the completion of the transaction by scratching his head
with his right hand.
2.5 With the aforesaid done, a trap bag was prepared which contained empty
glass bottles, glass tumblers, sodium carbonate powder, sealing material and CBI
seal amongst others. The excess phenolphthalein powder was returned to the
malkhana. The trap team carried with it a sum of Rs.200/- to meet incidental
expenses, if any, on the way.
2.6 Having completed the preparatory work to execute the trap, the members of
the trap team washed their hands so that traces, if any, of phenolphthalein powder
were removed. The members of the trap team subjected each other to a search;
having completed the search proceeded to execute the trap. The pre-tap
proceedings as they transpired, in the office of the CBI, were recorded in a
Handing Over Memo (Ex. PW1/A). As indicated above, the numbers of the GC
notes were recorded in an annexure appended to the said Handing Over Memo.
2.7 The trap team left their office at about 12.30 p.m. to reach Shastri Nagar,
where the appellant was supposed to be available. On reaching the main road at
Shastri Nagar, the members of the trap team disembarked from the vehicle; while
the complainant and the shadow witness proceeded to the place where the
appellant was to meet the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), the other members
of the trap team followed them even while maintaining a respectful distance from
the duo.
2.8 On the way, the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) met another employee
of Delhi Development Authority (in short, DDA) one Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-
3) who directed them to the post office. On entering the post office, the
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) sat on the bench next to a counter where
postage stamps were sold. Within a short while the appellant entered the post
office and approached the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1). On receipt of a
pre-arranged signal from the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5), the other
members of the trap team entered the post office. The members of the trap team
after disclosing their identity and challenging the appellant that he had demanded
and accepted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1)
caught hold of his wrist. On being informed by the shadow witness Ved Pal Singh
(PW-5) that the appellant had kept the treated GC notes in his right side trouser
pocket, Nankoo Ram (PW-4) was asked to search the appellant. On doing so,
Nankoo Ram (PW-4) recovered the treated GC notes. The serial numbers of the
treated GC notes were tallied by both independent witnesses i.e., Nankoo Ram
(PW-4) and Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) with those given in the annexure Ex. PW1/B.
After they had confirmed the fact that the numbers of the treated GC notes, which
had been recovered tallied with numbers available with them; a solution of sodium
carbonate was prepared in a glass tumbler. The right hand of the appellant was
dipped in the said solution. On the appellant‟s right hand coming in contact with
the said solution, it turned pink. Since the treated GC notes were kept by the
appellant in his right side trouser pocket, a similar exercise was carried out vis-à-
vis the right side trouser pocket of the appellant and an identical result emerged
i.e., the colourless solution of sodium carbonate turned pink on coming in contact
with the affected part of the trouser worn by the appellant.
2.9 The results of both solutions was transferred into two separate empty
bottles. The bottles were corked and wrapped with cloth, with the seal of CBI
affixed on them. The right hand wash of the appellant was labeled as RHW, while
the trouser wash was labeled as RSPPW. The independent witnesses Nankoo Ram
(PW-4) and Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) appended signatures on the cloth wrappers,
labels as well as the inner lining of the right side trouser pocket of the appellant.
The impression of the CBI seal was taken on the recovery memo (Ex. PW1/E),
which was prepared in the presence of all including the said two independent
witnesses. The proceedings which transpired were recorded in the recovery memo
(Ex.PW1/E). A personal search of the appellant was also carried out and a memo
being Ex. PW1/D was generated, on which the signatures of the appellant were
obtained. The CBI seal was, however, handed over to Nankoo Ram (PW-4) for
safe custody. The statements of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), Nankoo
Ram (PW-4) and Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) were also recorded.
2.10 Post the execution of the trap, reports of the chemical analyser was also
received, which established the presence of phenolphthalein powder on the hand of
the appellant as well as in the right side pocket wash of the trouser worn by the
appellant.
3. Thereafter, steps were taken to obtain sanction of the competent authority
i.e., Sh. S.P. Jakhanwal (PW-7), who was the Vice-Chairman of the DDA, at the
relevant point in time. Based on the material placed before Sh. S.P. Jakhanwal
(PW-7), which included the FIR, the copies of memos, statements of witnesses and
investigation report he accorded sanction for prosecution of the appellant which
was forwarded alongwith a letter dated 03.08.1992 under the signatures of Sh. U.S.
Rawat, Addl. Director (Vigilance), DDA. The sanction order being Ex. PW7/A.
3.1 Resultantly, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. The trial court
after taking cognizance of the same, summoned the appellant and framed charges
against the appellant in respect of the offences referred to above.
3.2 After completion of the trial, the trial court vide the impugned judgment
has convicted the appellant. In convicting the appellant, the trial court has relied
upon, essentially, amongst others, the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW-1), the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9), forensic
evidence in the form of the report (PW2/A) and the statutory presumption, which
is available where acceptance of bribe money is established under section 20 of the
P.C. Act.
4. Before me, the impugned judgment has been assailed by Sh. Anurag Jain,
Advocate, who appears for the appellant, while in rebuttal, arguments have been
advanced by Ms. Sonia Mathur, who appears for the State/CBI.
4.1 Mr. Jain has stated that there are far too many inconsistencies in the
testimony of the witnesses produced by the prosecution. It was submitted that the
said two independent witnesses i.e., Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and Ved Pal Singh (PW-
5) had turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.
4.2 To demonstrate, inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses,
Mr. Jain drew my attention to the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO
(PW-9) and that of the shadow witness Ved Pal Singh (PW-5). In this regard, he
also referred to the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1).
Particular emphasis was laid on that part of the testimony where the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW-1) adverted to a conversation which took place between him
and the appellant. The relevant portion of the testimony referred to as follows :-
"S.C. Joshi : paise laye ho
Myself: Han Laya hun.
S.C. Joshi : Jaldi Layo
Myself : Itni Jaldi bhi kaya hai. Baithai ek kap chai pilate hun. Aise na
ho ki ap paise lekar pher meri jamin per bulldozer pher den.
S.C. Joshi : Aise nahin, hamari jaban hoti hai. Hum bulldozer nahi
pherein gain - jaldi paise layo.
Thereafter, I took out Rs.5,000/- from my pant pocket (right side) and
gave that money to accused S.C. Joshi. Accused S.C. Joshi asked me
how much is the amount to which I replied it is Rs.5,000/-. I do not
remember as to by which hand the accused accept that amount but after
accepting the same, he kept the same in his pant pocket he kept those
currency notes. Thereafter, accused asked me :
"Tum jail jayo, or baki jo panch hazar rupaye hai wo somvar ko mujhe de
dena, 09.12.1991 ko de dena to which I replied :
Baitho jaldi kaya hai, ek kap chaye ap ko pilatey hain.
Accused replied that, "Nahi chaye phir kise din piye gain".
Thereafter, I gave the pre appointed signal and immediately, thereafter
Ved Pal caught hold of the wrist of the accused and other members of
trap party also reached there and they caught hold the accused. CBI
officials asked me as to by which hand accused had accepted the money
to which I replied that I do not know. Inspector Ramesh asked the
accused as to whether he had accepted bribe from me to which accused
replied "hai jai li hai". PW Ved Pal also told Inspector Ramesh that
accused had accepted the money (objected to by the accused). Pant
pocket of the accused was searched but I do not remember as to who took
out the currency notes from the pant pocket of the accused. During the
search of the pant pocket, tainted currency notes of Rs.5,000/- were
recovered and they were in the denomination of Rs.100/- each. PW Ved
Pal and Nanku Ram and other members of trap party compared those
tainted currency notes with handing over memo and the numbers of
currency notes were tallied. Thereafter, one hand of the accused was
dipped in a colourless solution and that solution turned into pink colour.
However, I cannot say as to which hand of the accused was dipped in that
solution. That solution was transferred into a clean empty bottle and was
sealed identification label was pasted on that bottle."
4.3 The learned counsel submitted that as against what PW-1 had stated, a
perusal of testimony of the shadow witness Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) would show
that at the relevant point in time he was actually standing in the tea shop near the
post office and not inside the post office contrary to what was sought to be
portrayed by the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1). Therefore, the complainant,
Kulwant Singh (PW-1) being interested witness his testimony as to what transpired
inside the post office could not be given credence to by the court.
4.4 In so far as the recovery of treated GC notes was concerned, Mr. Jain also
pointed out to that part of the testimony of inspector Ramesh Kumar (PW-9)
wherein he was asked as to what transpired when, evidently, the appellant was
confronted with the fact that he had demanded and accepted bribe from the
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1). According to inspector Ramesh Kumar
(PW9) the appellant had kept mum, whereas the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-
1) had stated that the appellant had responded by saying: "hanji liye hai".
4.5 Mr. Jain drew my attention to the fact that while the complainant Kulwant
Singh (PW-1) stated in his testimony that he did not remember as to who took out
the treated GC notes from the right side trouser pocket of the appellant; Inspector
Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) had emphasized in his testimony that the search was
carried out by Nankoo Ram (PW-4), who had recovered the said treated GC notes
from the right side trouser pocket of the appellant.
4.6 Based on the above, it was argued that neither the demand nor recovery of
the treated GC notes was established and hence, the case of the prosecution ought
to have failed.
4.7 Learned counsel further argued that no motive could be attributed to the
appellant to demand or accept the bribe since the appellant was in no position to
demolish the house of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1); an allegation which
formed the substratum of the prosecution‟s case.
4.8 The appellant was only, according to the learned counsel, in charge of
fencing the land, which was proximate to the house of the complainant. Mr. Jain
laid stress on the fact that the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) was motivated
by malice in as much as he had acted at the behest of one, Mool Chand Gaur, who
was a known land grabber. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) was a local
leader who had been instigated by the said Mool Chand Gaur to lodge a complaint
against the appellant since the Land Protection Branch of the DDA had demolished
illegal structures which had come up on the land belonging to the Government, and
one such structure, was in illegal occupation of the said Mool Chand Gaur.
4.9 In this regard, the learned counsel referred to the statement of the appellant
recorded under the provisions of Section 313 of the Code.
5. Mr. Jain also submitted that the presumption under section 20 of the P.C.
Act would only arise if the prosecution was able to discharge its initial burden. In
the instant case, it was Mr. Jain‟s submission, the prosecution had miserably failed
to discharge even its initial burden and hence, the trial court had erred in invoking
the provisions of section 20 of the P.C. Act. Mr. Jain in support of his
submissions, relied upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the case of
Banarasi Dass Vs. State of Haryana 2010 (4) SCC 450.
6. Ms. Sonia Mathur, on the other hand, has largely relied upon the impugned
judgment in response to the submissions of the learned counsel for the appellant.
She specifically laid specific emphasis on the testimony of Inspector Ramesh
Kumar, TLO (PW-9). It was submitted that once the court is convinced that the
testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) is credible; then there would
be no impediment in law in convicting the appellant solely on such testimony. It
was submitted that the corroboration of the TLO‟s testimony is not a rule of law
but a rule of prudence.
6.1 Ms. Mathur also drew my attention to the relevant part of the testimony of
the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) to establish the fact that not only had he
proved the complaint lodged by him and thus, established the initial demand, but
by his deposition in court, established the subsequent demand and acceptance of
bribe by the appellant, on 06.12.1991.
6.2 Ms. Mathur submitted that the discrepancies pointed out by the learned
counsel for the appellant were minor, which did not in any manner dilute the main
charge against the appellant, which was that he had demanded and accepted the
bribe from the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), and the fact that the treated
GC notes were recovered from him. Ms. Mathur submitted that once the recovery
is established then, the court is entitled to draw a statutory presumption in terms of
Section 20 of the P.C. Act. In this regard, she drew my attention to paragraph
no.38 of the impugned judgment.
6.3 Ms. Mathur submitted that the argument that there was no motive since the
appellant was not in the position to demolish the house of the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW-1) is belied on perusal of the testimony of S.K. Sood (PW-6).
She submitted that a reading of the testimony of PW-6 would show that the
appellant was in a position to convey to the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) an
impression that demolition of structures such as the appellant‟s house was within
the ambit of his job function. In support of her submission, the learned counsel
relied upon the judgment of the Kerala High Court in Dr.V. Sebastian Vs. State
1998 Crl. L.J. 1150. A particular emphasis was made on the observations made in
paragraph no.8 of the said judgment at page no.1151.
7. I have heard the learned counsel for both the appellant as well as the State
(CBI) and also perused the evidence placed on record. The prosecution, in order to
prove its case, had examined nine (9) witnesses. The defendant except for making a
statement under Section 313 of the Code has not examined any witness. As is usual
in such like cases what would be crucial to the prosecution‟s case is its ability to
establish demand and acceptance of alleged bribe by the appellant as also its
recovery. The learned counsel for the appellant has submitted (as noticed
hereinabove by me) that none of these ingredients, which are necessary for
conviction of the appellant, have been established in this case. Therefore, in my
view, what would be necessary is to examine the testimony of witnesses which are
crucial to the case of the prosecution from this angle.
7.1 Therefore, first in line, is the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW1).
7.2 Complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) in his examination-in-chief has stated
that his wife owned a house bearing No. 260-B, Gali No. 4, New Lahore Shastri
Nagar, Delhi which was purchased in the year 1989. The appellant evidently was
getting some fencing work done on the land which was in close proximity to the
aforementioned house of the complaint. This work was being carried out by the
appellant for about 15-20 days and he seems to have approached the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW1) 2-3 days prior to 06.12.1991. Evidently, the appellant came
across the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) when he purportedly conveyed to him
that his house would be razed to the ground; to which the complainant Kulwant
Singh (PW1) stated that he was a poor man and that he should refrain from doing so.
The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) in his testimony goes on to say that
thereafter on 06.12.1991 at about 10.00 a.m. the appellant was seen standing outside
his house, which is when, the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) approached him.
At this point it appears that the appellant informed him that he would raze his house
to the ground if he did not pay him Rs. 10,000/-. As on the earlier occasion, the
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) made protestations that since he was poor, the
appellant should have mercy on him. At this point of time the appellant, evidently
told the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1), that he should pay him Rs. 5000/- by
10.00 o‟clock the same day, and the balance sum of Rs 5000/- by 09.12.1991. The
appellant, evidently, further went on to threaten the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW1) that if, the money was not received then, i.e., by 09.12.1991 he would
dispatch a report to his superiors, which would result in the complainant‟s house
being demolished. These assertions have also been made by the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW1) in his complaint (Ex. PW1/C); the contents of which the
complainant went on to prove in his deposition in court as also the fact that it was in
his hand writing and bore his signatures at point „A‟.
7.3 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) further went on to state that being
under threat of demolition, he went straight to the CBI office where, he lodged a
complaint; to which reference is made by me hereinabove. At his request a FIR (Ex.
PW9/A) was registered on the same date at about 11.00 a.m.
7.4 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to prove, in his examination-
in-chief the prosecution‟s case with regard to the manner in which the trap team was
constituted, and also the inclusion of two independent witnesses, i.e., Nankoo Ram
(PW4) and the shadow witness Ved Pal Singh (PW5).
7.5 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) as regards the execution of the trap
had stated as follows: At about 1.00 p.m. on 06.12.1991, he along with other
members of the trap team left the office of the CBI and reached Shastri Nagar at
about 1.30 p.m. where some fencing work was being carried out. The vehicles in
which they arrived were parked at some distance. He along with shadow witness
Ved Pal Singh (PW5) walked to the spot where the fencing work was being carried
out.
7.6 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to state that on reaching the
spot where the fencing work was going on he sat on a „pulia‟. On seeing him, the
appellant came to him and told him that, since there were a lot many people around
he should proceed to the post office which was in close proximity.
7.7 To be noted, in the course of his deposition the witness, i.e., PW1 identified
the appellant.
7.8 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to state that between fifteen
(15) minutes to half-an-hour the appellant came to the post office. All this while the
shadow witness Ved Pal Singh (PW5) was standing outside the post office near a tea
shop. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) testified that inside the post office the
following conversation apparently took place between him and the appellant:
"S.C. Joshi:- Paise laye ho.
Myself:- Han laya hun.
S.C. Joshi:- Jaldi layo.
Myself:- Itni jaldi bhi kya hai, baithai ek kap chai pilata hun.
Aisa na ho ke ap paise lekar pher meri jamin per
bulldozer pher den.
S.C. Joshi:- Aise nahin, hamari jaban hoti hai. Hum bulldozer nahin
pherain gain. Jaldi paise layo."
7.9 Upon conclusion of the aforesaid conversation, complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW1) testified, that he took out a sum of Rs 5000/- from the right side pocket of his
trouser and handed over the same to the appellant; at which point the appellant asked
him as to what was the total amount, to which the complainant (PW1) replied by
saying that it was 5000/-. At this juncture the appellant evidently told the
complainant to go away and, reminded him that he should bring the balance sum of
Rs 5000/- on 09.12.1001.
8. In order to delay the appellant, the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) tried
to engage him in conversation by offering him a cup of tea. The appellant was not
interested in having tea since he did not want to get detained. The complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW1) made a signal suggesting that the transaction was complete.
On receiving the signal Ved Pal (PW5), shadow witness caught hold of the appellant.
The other members of the trap team, it appears, also converged at the spot where, the
appellant and the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) were located.
8.1 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) deposed, that on the appellant being
confronted by Ramesh Kumar (PW9) that he had demanded and accepted bribe from
the complainant, he is stated to have said: "haan ji liye hain". This fact, according to
the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1), was also confirmed by Ved Pal Singh
(PW5), the shadow witness.
8.2 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to say that thereafter the
trouser pocket of the appellant was searched, and the search resulted in the recovery
of the treated GC notes amounting to Rs 5000/-. The complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW1), however, stated that he did not recollect as to who had carried out the search
of the appellant.
8.3 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) further asserted that Ved Pal Singh
(PW5) and Nankoo Ram (PW4) along with other members of the trap party had
compared the serial numbers of the treated GC notes with those which had already
been recorded in the handing over memo.
8.4 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) also stated that the appellant‟s hand
was dipped in a colourless solution whereupon, it turned pink as also the fact that the
coloured solution was transferred into empty bottles which was sealed thereafter. He
also stated that the signatures of the witnesses were obtained on the label as well as
on the cloth wrapper with which the mouth of the bottle was sealed.
8.5 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) has also deposed that a recovery
memo was prepared which, amongst others, bore his signatures at point „A‟. He also
identified the trouser of the appellant which was recovered on the relevant date, i.e.,
(Ex. P-1).
8.6 In the cross-examination he accepted the fact that he had purchased the built
up house about 8-9 years ago and that before purchasing the house he had not
ascertained whether the plans for constructing the super structure had been
sanctioned. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to say that the appellant
was involved in the work of fencing and getting encroachment removed from the
land proximate to his house.
8.7 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1), further, denied knowledge of any
tiff between the appellant and Mool Chand Gaur in that connection. The
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1), however, accepted the fact that he had got one
O.P. Chhikara trapped in a bribery case and that he was the complainant in that case.
He denied, however, the suggestion that the Investigating Officer (I.O.) in that case
was Ramesh Kumar (PW9). He clearly recollected that the IO in that case was one,
Azad Singh.
8.8 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) also accepted the fact that he had
been engaged in the litigation with one Mohd. Faruq and Sh. V.K. Sharma, Manager
of Canara Bank, Krishna Nagar and that he had filed complainants against them
which were pending adjudication in that court. The complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW1), however, denied that he had encroached upon the government land.
8.9 In the cross-examination the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) continued to
maintain his stand that the appellant had come to him on 06.12.1991 at about 10.00
a.m. He specifically denied that after his interaction with the appellant he had gone
to meet Mool Chand Gaur. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) maintained that
he went straight to the office of the CBI after he had collected Rs. 5000/- from his
house.
9. On a suggestion being made as to the source from which he had obtained the
sum of Rs 5000, he stated that he had withdrawn the sum from his bank, i.e., Delhi
Nagrik Sehkari Bank to purchase stocks for his shop; though he failed to recollect
with precision as to whether he had withdrawn the money on 06.12.1991 or a day
prior to that date.
9.1 On being asked as to the time at which the bank opened, the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW1) replied by saying, that the bank opened at about 8.00-8.30
a.m. in the morning.
9.2 He denied the suggestion that he had visited the office of the CBI four or five
days prior to 06.12.1991 to lodge a complaint against the appellant. The
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) in the cross-examination maintained that after his
interaction he went straight to the CBI office where he wrote out the complaint in his
own handwriting in the presence of Inspector Ram Chander (PW8).
9.3 Furthermore, in the cross-examination, Kulwant Singh (PW1) maintained
broadly that on reaching Shastri Nagar he sat on a „pulia‟, where he was met by the
appellant who, asked him to go to a post office which was proximate to where they
were located. He also maintained that the appellant entered the post office within
fifteen (15) minutes to half-an-hour of his having entered the post office. He further
testified to the effect that, he was followed by the two independent witnesses and the
CBI officials, to the post office. He also deposed that on entering the post office, the
appellant came to him and said "jaldi paise de". The complainant further stated that
they were sitting near the entrance door to the post office. He further maintained that
on completion of the transaction, he give the pre-arranged signal whereupon, the
other members of the trap team converged to the spot.
9.4 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) denied having had any quarrel with
the appellant as also any knowledge of any quarrel that the appellant had had with
Mool Chand Gaur. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW1) went on to deny that
either Mool Chand Gaur had threatened the appellant or he had knowledge of any
such threat. The complainant specifically denied the suggestion made to him that the
bribe money was given to him by Mool Chand Gaur and that it was Mool Chand
Gaur who had taken him to the CBI Office.
9.5 He did not recollect having filed any contempt petition against the appellant
on behalf of a milk society, as was sought to be suggested to him.
9.6 The complainant denied the suggestion that he had falsely implicated the
appellant in connivance with Mool Chand Gaur.
10. Let me also deal with the relevant part of the testimony of Sh. N.K. Pershad
(PW-2), the Chemical Examiner. The said witness proved the contents of the CFSL
report (Ex.P2/A) and also testified to the effect that it bore his signatures at point
„A‟.
10.1 Sh. N.K. Pershad (PW-2) testified to the effect that on 13.12.1991 he had
received two sealed water bottles for chemical analyses. He deposed that the seal on
the bottle was intact, and that the seal on the bottle was the same which was
appended as a specimen on the forwarding letter signed by the Superintendent of
Police, CBI.
10.2 Sh. N.K. Pershad (PW-2) further stated that the bottle mark RHW contained
175 ml. of colourless liquid having some dirty white sediment. The said bottle was
marked Exhibit 1. The other bottle which bore the mark RSPPW contained 180 ml
of pink coloured liquid with dirty white sediment. This bottle was marked Exhibit 2.
He went on to say that the contents of the bottles were chemically examined in the
laboratory by him and his analyses of Exhibit1 & 2 gave positive test for
phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. The remnants of the two exhibits were
corked and sealed and were returned to the office of the Superintendent of Police,
CBI. In the cross examination, he did not deviate from what was said by him in his
examination-in-chief. On being asked, he reiterated that the bottle bearing the mark
RHW had a solution which was colourless.
11. Let me also briefly touch upon the relevant part of the testimony of other
crucial witnesses.
11.1 Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-3) who was an employee of DDA, was working
at the relevant point in time, as a mate in New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar, Delhi,
where evidently the trap team had reached to execute the trap laid out for the
appellant. Importantly, Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-3) in his testimony stated as
follows :-
"I was on duty in New Lahore Shastri Nagar, Delhi where work of
fencing was being executed. On that day, one person came to me and
enquired the whereabouts of S.C. Joshi, J.E. and S.C. Joshi had already
told me that if anybody enquired about him then I should tell him that I
will be available in the post office of Shastri Nagar. When that person
enquired about S.C. Joshi from me I told him that he is not available
here at present and he will be available at Shastri Nagar Post Office, and
he went to post office Shastri Nagar and I left for taking medicine.
XXXX by Sh. M.P. Singh, Advocate for the accused
It is correct that Sh. S.C. Joshi used to tell me daily that if anyone
of his acquaintance comes and enquiries about him he be sent to post
office. It is correct that no one had ever complained or told me that the
JE Sh. Joshi is harassing them or demanding any money. It is correct
that prior to 4 / 5 days of the day of trap JE S.C. Joshi had a quarrel with
one Kulwant Singh over digging of trench and the said Kulwant Singh
had threatened that he will see him i.e., "MAIN TUJHE DEKH
LUGAN AUR NOKRI KARNA SIKHYUN GA TU BHI YAD RAKHE
GA."
11.2 I am for the moment, not adverting to the testimony of Nankoo Ram (PW-4)
and the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5). Since it has been argued before me
that both independent witnesses had turned hostile and their testimony cannot be
relied upon.
11.3 Sh. S.K. Sood (PW-6), who was at the relevant time posted in the South-East
Division No.7 as the Executive Engineer, affirmed that the appellant was working
under him at that point in time as a Junior Engineer. He testified that the appellant
was entrusted the job of getting dimensional sketches authenticated from the land
section and therefore, was assigned the work of getting the reclaimed land fenced
after the demolition was over. PW6 admitted that the contract for demolition was
awarded by him and that it was the job of the appellant, to get the work executed.
11.4 In the cross-examination, S.K. Sood (PW-6) broadly reiterated what he had
said in the examination-in-chief vis-à-vis the appellant. To a suggestion as to why
the appellant did not have a seating arrangement at the site where the demolition and
fencing work was conducted, the witness (i.e., PW6) stated that since the appellant
was involved in execution of the work assigned to him as per the general practice, he
would supervise the work for a few hours and attend the office of the Assistant
Engineer, which was the Divisional office situate at Udai Park for further
instructions.
11.5 The witness (PW6), however, did not recollect as to whether the appellant
was present at the time of demolition nor did he remember the exact date when the
appellant had taken over charge of fencing work at New Lahore Colony.
11.6 In respect of the house of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), S.K. Sood
(PW-6) stated that the said house was not under his jurisdiction for the purposes of
demolition.
11.7 Sh. S.P. Jhakanwal (PW-7) who was posted as a Vice-Chairman, at the
relevant point in time, proved the sanction order (Ex.PW7/A).
11.8 Sh. R.K. Saini (PW-8), Dy. Superintendent of Police, CBI who was a formal
witness, only deposed to the effect that he was responsible for examining the
witnesses, collection of relevant records which included the report of the Chemical
Examiner, and for obtaining sanction to prosecute the appellant. He also deposed to
the effect that he was instrumental in filing the charge-sheet against the appellant.
12. This brings me to the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9),
who was at the relevant point in time posted as the Inspector with Anti Corruption
Branch (in short, „ACB‟) of CBI. The said witness detailed out in his testimony, the
pre-trap proceedings and the events as they transpired when the trap laid out for the
appellant was executed. A large part of his testimony forms the basis of the
prosecution‟s case which I have already adverted to in the earlier part of my
judgment. The essential part of his testimony which relates to what transpired
according to him on reaching Shastri Nagar and thereafter when the trap was
brought into play, for the sake of convenience, is extracted hereinbelow :-
"On reaching Shastri Nagar main road, vehicles were parked and
complainant and shadow witness were directed to proceed to the spot
where the accused was to meet the complainant. We all the other
members of the trap party followed them incognitio. On reaching Gali
no.2, New Lahore, Shastri Nagar, we saw that the complainant had a talk
with a person who was lateron known to be an employee of DDA. Again
the complainant talked to him after 2/3 minutes and after that complainant
and shadow witness alongwith the said person whose name was
purushottam proceeded towards Shastri Nagar Post Office. On reaching
in front of post office, the mate Purushottam Lal left their company and
the complainant sat on a bench where the tickets etc. were being sold.
After sometime, one person also went near the complainant and sat on the
bench and later on it was disclosed that he was the accused S.C. Joshi. At
about 1.45 P.M. shadow witness came outside of the post office and gave
pre-appointed signal and on receipt of the signal, we all rushed towards
the post office and on reaching there it was seen that the accused and
complainant were standing together.
Inspector R.V.S. Lomohar and Inspector S.K. Sinha caught hold
of the accused against both respective writs. I disclosed my identify to
the accused and challenged him that he has demanded and accepted a
bribe amount of Rs.5,000/- from the complainant on which he kept mum.
The independent witness Ved Pal Singh told that the accused after
accepting the bribe amount with his right hand had kept the same in his
right side pant pocket. Independent witness Nanku Ram directed to take
search of the right side pant pocket of the accused for recovering of the
bribe amount and on doing so, he recovered the bribe amount. The
numbers of the recovered GC notes were tallied with the nos. noted in
annexure Ex.PW1/B by both the independent witnesses and they
confirmed that the nos. are the same."
12.1 Apart from what was stated with regard to the trap, the witness (PW9) also
proved the post trap proceedings which included the factum of the right hand fingers
of the appellant being dipped in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate; which
turned pink on coming in contact with the phenolphthalein powder smeared on to his
hand. PW9 also proved the factum of the right side trouser pocket of the accused
being washed in another colourless solution of sodium carbonate, which also turned
pink on coming in contact with the inner lining of the right side trouser pocket.
PW9 went on to prove that the both washes of the right hand fingers of the appellant
and the right side trouser pocket of the appellant were sealed and kept in separate
bottles. The said washes were marked as RHW and RSPPW.
12.2 He proved the factum of the preparation of the site plan (Ex.PW4/A). The
recoveries made as noted down in the Recovery Memo (Ex.PW/E); the personal
search memo of the appellant (Ex.PW1/D), were also proved by PW9. PW9 also
deposed to the effect that the said exhibits bore his signatures.
12.3 He also testified to the effect that both the washes were sent to CFSL for
chemical analyses.
12.4 He testified that the GC notes (Ex. P-2 to P-51) were the same GC notes
which were recovered from the right side trouser pocket of the appellant by Nankoo
Ram (PW-4) on his directions.
12.5 In his cross-examination, Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) refuted the
suggestion that the complaint had been written at his say so. The witness refuted the
suggestion that the right hand wash (Ex.P-1) was a colourless solution.
12.6 During the course of examination of PW9, the court made an observation that
"the solution in bottle (Ex.P-1) is diluted milky white".
12.7 The witness denied the suggestion that no money was recovered from the
possession of the appellant. PW9 accepted the fact that the demand and acceptance
of bribe by the appellant from the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) was not in his
presence.
12.8 Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) identified the appellant during the
course of his deposition in court.
13. At this juncture, I would only refer to those parts of the testimony of Nankoo
Ram (PW-4) and the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) which are relevant for
the purposes of deposition as their testimony has been impugned on the ground that
they turned hostile.
13.1 Nankoo Ram (PW-4) accepted the fact that the Handing Over Memo in
respect of the pre-trap proceedings bore his signatures. Nankoo Ram (PW-4) also
accepted the fact that just outside the post office, the appellant was met by
Purshottam Dass Dixit (PW-3) who was working as a mate with DDA and that after
a short conversation with him, the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) proceeded
further. He also accepted the fact that he alongwith the shadow witness, Ved Pal
Singh (PW-5) followed the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) who proceeded
towards the Shastri Nagar Post Office.
13.2 As regards the appellants meeting the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1),
Nankoo Ram (PW-4) stated as follows :-
"I cannot say definitely that after about 5 minutes accused S.C. Joshi
entered the post office and approached the complainant and after wishing
the complainant, S.C. Joshi also sat on the same bench near the
complainant. (Con. With portion H to H of statement mark X where it is
so recorded). I do not remember this fact because the matter is 8/9 years
old."
13.3 As regards whether the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) had entered
the Post Office and gave the signal, Nankoo Ram (PW-4) stated as follows :-
"I cannot say definitely that shadow witness also entered into the post
office. (confronted with portion J to J of mark X where it is so
recorded). It is correct that I alongwith other members of trap party
took suitable positions around the post office. It is incorrect to suggest
that shadow witness after coming out of the post office gave pre
appointed signal at about 1.45 p.m. (confronted with portion K to K of
mark X where it is so recorded). In fact, a CBI official gave the signal
by waiving his handkerchief to us."
13.4 To be noted while in the cross-examination by the prosecutor (on his turning
hostile) the witness (PW4) had stated that he did not remember as to whether the
shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) had entered the post office. In the cross-
examination by the counsel for the accused, he asserted with vehemence that he and
the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) were outside the post office standing
near a tea shop.
13.5 In so far as the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) was concerned, he
went to the extent of even denying that he acted as a shadow witness, though he
admitted his signatures on the Handing Over Memo (Ex.PW1/A) and the annexure
(Ex.PW1/B) appended thereto. The shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (Ex.PW-5)
accepted the fact that on 06.12.1991, he alongwith other members of the trap team
left for Shastri Nagar. He stated that he was told not to follow the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and that they were in fact divided into three (3) teams. He,
however, accepted the fact that the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) was asked
to proceed towards a designated location in Gali no2, Shastri Nagar, Delhi where,
other employees of the DDA were engaged in the work. He accepted his signatures
both on the Recovery Memo (Ex. PW1/D), though he insisted that the signatures
were appended by him on the say so of the officers of the CBI. The shadow witness,
Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) also accepted his signatures on P-52 and P-53.
14. An appraisal of the testimony of the various witnesses, to which I made out
reference hereinabove, would show that the following clearly emerges based on the
evidence on record :-
14.1 The appellant was connected with the demolition work under the supervision
of Sh. S.K. Sood (PW-6), who at the relevant time was posted as an Executive
Engineer, Division-7 of the DDA. The work entrusted to the team of S.K. Sood
(PW-6) which included the appellant involved reclaiming land by fencing it after the
demolition operation had been carried out. It has also emerged that the team of S.K.
Sood (PW-6) including the appellant were in charge of fencing work near New
Lahore Colony which was where the house of the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-
1) was located.
14.2 The house of the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) which was in his
wife‟s name was also situate in New Lahore Colony, Shastri Nagar, Delhi.
14.3 The complaint (Ex.PW-1/C) was lodged with the ACB of the CBI by the
complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) on 06.12.1991. In the complaint, it was alleged
that since the appellant was involved in the demolition work he had threatened that
his house would be demolished in case a bribe of Rs.10,000/- was not paid to him by
the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1). This part of the testimony of the
complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) that he lodged the complaint on his own and
that it was in his own hand writing, without being instigated by the officers of CBI,
did not get dislodged in the cross-examination of the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW-1).
14.4 The fact that a trap had been laid vis-à-vis the appellant clearly emerges
from the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and Inspector
Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9). As a matter of fact, even in the testimony of Nankoo
Ram (PW-4) and the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5), this fact comes
through.
14.5 As to what transpired during the pre-trap proceedings is proved both by the
complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) as well as by Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO
(PW-9). The Handing Over Memo (Ex.PW1/A) and the annexure appended thereto
(Ex.PW1/B) containing details of the GC notes has also been proved both the
complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9).
As a matter of fact, even Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and the shadow witness, Ved Pal
Singh (PW-5) have accepted their signatures on the said exhibits.
14.6 The fact that thereafter the trap team including Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and the
shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) proceeded to execute the trap at Shastri
Nagar also emerges from the testimony of these witnesses as well. It is at this point
that the testimony of two independent witnesses i.e. Nankoo Ram (PW-4) and the
shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) takes a complete u-turn. They seemed to
suggest that they were not present in the post office where the transaction took place
between the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and the appellant.
14.7 What is, however, accepted by all the witnesses including Nankoo Ram (PW-
4) and the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh (PW-5) that the trap team disembarked at
Shastri Nagar, whereupon the complainant proceeded to a place where some workers
of the DDA were collected and engrossed in their respective work. The complainant
was met by Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-3) though the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh
(PW-5) refuted this aspect as well. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) after
having a short conversation with Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-3) proceeded to the post
office located in Shastri Nagar.
14.8 What clearly emerges from the testimony of Purshotam Dass Dixit (PW-3) is
that the appellant had informed him that if anyone came looking for him, he was to
be directed to the post office. This would, seem rather strange if the appellant was
not expecting a visitor, which in the instant case was the complainant.
14.9 The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) has made a reference to the events
which took place in the post office. According to the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW-1), the appellant demanded the money, whereupon he tried to delay him by
saying what was the hurry and he should share a cup of tea with him. In the course
of the conversation, as per the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1),
the treated GC notes were handed over to the appellant. The site plan which has
been proved both by the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and Inspector Ramesh
Kumar, TLO (Ex. PW-9) would show that at the relevant point in time the shadow
witness, Ved Pal Singh (Ex.PW-5) was in the post office; though this fact has been
denied both by Nankoo Ram (PW-4) as well as the shadow witness, Ved Pal Singh
(PW-5).
15. Therefore, on the aspect as to what transpired between the appellant and the
complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1), immediately after the demand and acceptance
of the bribe, we have the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9).
There is a minor variation, however, as to what the appellant said at that stage, that
is, when he was confronted with the situation that he had demanded and accepted the
bribe from the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1). While the complainant Kulwant
Singh (PW-1) stated that the appellant had said "Hanji liye hai", Inspector Ramesh
Kumar, TLO (PW-9) seemed to recollect that the appellant had remained "mum".
This, according to me, is an insignificant variation in respect of the events as they
transpired at that point of time.
15.1 What is significant is that both witnesses i.e., the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW-1) and Inspector Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) concur that the trouser pocket of
the appellant was searched which resulted in the recovery of the treated GC notes. It
is also emerged from the report of Sh. N.K. Pershad, Chemical Examiner (PW-2)
that Exhibit RSPPW tested positive for both phenolphthalein powder as well as
sodium carbonate solution. The complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) and Inspector
Ramesh Kumar, TLO (PW-9) also established that when the inner lining of the right
side trouser pocket of the appellant was dipped in the colourless solution of sodium
carbonate, it had turned pink.
15.2 Keeping in mind, the aforesaid aspects of the evidence, it cannot be said that
the prosecution had failed to establish a motive in respect of the demand of bribe by
the appellant. The testimony of S.K. Sood (PW-6) clearly shows that the appellant
was in a position to at least convey the impression to the complainant Kulwant Singh
(PW-1) that he could harm his interest in as much as get his house demolished. The
complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1) being worried obviously approached the CBI
office.
15.3 The laying of the trap and its execution has also been proved as observed by
me hereinabove.
15.4 The fact that there was a demand and acceptance of the bribe has also been
proved by the complainant, Kulwant Singh (PW-1). The fact that the testimony of
the complainant Kulwant Singh (PW-1) is in the nature of the testimony of an
accomplice, which requires the court to examine it closely for credibility and
corroboration - would have me discarded it, if I find it otherwise credible. Having
examined the testimony of the complainant Kulwant Sigh (PW-1), I find to be
credible, natural and reliable in respect of the material aspects of the prosecution‟s
case. What lends further credence to his testimony is what followed immediately
thereafter, that is, the recovery of the treated GC notes from the appellant. This part
of the testimony stands corroborated by the testimony of Inspector Ramesh Kumar,
TLO (PW-9). The CFSL report further supports the fact that the recovery had been
made from the right side trouser pocket of the appellant. Therefore, in my view, the
trial court correctly brought into play the provisions of Section 20 of the P.C. Act to
draw a presumption as regards the commission of the offence by the appellant.
16. Before I part with the case, I would like to deal with the judgment in the case
of Banarsi Das (supra) cited by the learned counsel for the appellant. In Banarsi
Das (supra) the facts were briefly as follows: The appellant/accused was posted as a
Patwari in a village. One Pritam Kaur had an agricultural land in the same village.
The daughter of Pritam Kaur, namely, Sat Pal Kaur informed the appellant that in
1996 the khasra girdawari of her mother‟s land were recorded in the name of one Jit
Singh and others, as tenants, by the earlier patwari. The said Sat Pal Kaur had taken
up the matter with the said tenants who had accepted the wrongful inclusion of their
names by the erstwhile Patwari. In this connection, Sat Pal Kaur had also obtained
no objection on the application moved by her mother for incorporating the necessary
changes, in the next khasra girdawari, in the ensuing season. It was the case of the
prosecution that illegal gratification had been demanded by the appellant for making
necessary changes in the revenue record. Evidently, the demand had been made in
the presence of the taxi driver, who had been engaged by the said Sat Pal Kaur while
visiting the appellant. A complaint was lodged by Sat Pal Kaur with the Sub-
Divisional Executive Magistrate. Her statement was recorded, and a trap was laid
for the appellant. Sat Pal Kaur produced the bribe amount of Rs 400 in
denomination of Rs 100 each which were signed by the Sub-Divisional Executive
Magistrate as well as the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was the case of the
prosecution that the appellant demanded the money and the same was accepted by
him. In support of its case the prosecution had examined the complainant Sat Pal
Kaur, the taxi driver and the DSP as well as one another person. The complainant
Sat Pal Kaur as well as the taxi driver, who had accompanied her, turned hostile and
were cross-examined. It is in this context that the court came to the conclusion that
the benefit of doubt had to be given to the appellant/ accused. The court re-affirmed
the principle that even if statutory presumption is drawn under the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1947 or even under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that mere recovery of
tainted notes divorced from the circumstances would not be sufficient to convict the
accused despite the presumption being available under the aforementioned provision
which in any event is rebuttable (See paragraph 26). As is evident the facts in the
case of Banarsi Das (supra) are distinguishable. In the instant case the complainant
Kulwant Singh (PW1) has not wavered from his testimony. As discussed above, the
corroborative material is available on record for coming to the conclusion that there
was both demand and acceptance of payment by the appellant in the instant case.
17. Therefore, looking at the entirety of the evidence, I find no reason to interfere
with impugned judgment or the sentences imposed by the trial court. The appeal is
thus dismissed. The bail bond and the security furnished is cancelled. The appellant
shall be taken into custody forthwith and suffer the remaining part of the sentence, as
directed by the trial court. The appellant shall, however, get the benefit of the period
of detention, if any, already undergone against the sentence of imprisonment
imposed by the trial court.
18. The appeal is disposed of accordingly.
APRIL 21, 2011 RAJIV SHAKDHER, J.
yg/kk
