Chanderkesh vs State
2014 Latest Caselaw 1413 Del

*      IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

%                               Judgment reserved on :11.3.2014
                               Judgment delivered on: 18.3.2014

+      CRL.A. 205/2006

       CHANDERKESH                              ..... Appellant
                         Through     Mr. H.K. Sharma, Mr. Mohit
                                     Aggarwal and Mr. Siddharth
                                     Gupta, Advs.

                         Versus


       STATE                                    ..... Respondent
                         Through     Mr. Varun Goswami, APP

       CORAM:
       HON'BLE MS. JUSTICE INDERMEET KAUR


INDERMEET KAUR, J.

1 This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order

of sentence dated 17.3.2006 and 18.3.2006 wherein the appellant

Chanderkesh has been convicted under Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d)

read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988

(hereinafter referred to the as the said Act); for the offence under

Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the said Act he has been

sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 1 year and to pay a fine of

Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of fine to undergo SI for two months;

for the offence under Section 7 of the said Act he has been sentenced to

undergo RI for six months and to pay a fine of Rs.1000/- in default of

payment of fine to undergo SI for 15 days.

2 Record shows that a complaint had been filed by Madhu (PW-4)

which was to the effect that the appellant who was working as a record

keeper in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate had demanded

an illegal gratification of Rs.250/- from the complainant for supplying

her a certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to her plot i.e. plot

No.81A, measuring 150 sq. yards, Khasra No.339, Village Bindarpur,

Block-V, Sector-D, Najafgarh Road, Delhi. This complaint was made

by PW-4 before the Anti Corruption Branch on 28.4.1993; the

complaint had noted that on 27.4.1993 i.e. one day prior to her

complaint at about 2.00 p.m. she had gone to the office of the Sub-

Registrar, Kashmere Gate; she had contacted the dealing clerk known as

Chander Kesh, who is the present appellant; he was working as a record

keeper. She wanted a certified copy of the sale deed pertaining to her

plot; the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.250/- (sewa-paani);

Rs.100/- was paid on 27.4.1993 as a advance and balance of Rs.150/-

had been agreed to be paid on the following day i.e.28.4.1993. Since

she did not wish to pay the bribe amount this complaint was filed. In

court she (PW-4) however did not support the prosecution version.

3 The pre-raid proceedings were drawn up. In the pre-raid

proceedings the investigating officer S.P.Singh (PW-7) had called the

panchwitness S.S.Rawat (PW-10) to join the proceedings; it was

explained to the panchwitness that after the bribe money had been paid

by the complainant to the accused an appointed signal had to be given

by him pursuant to which raiding party would reach the spot.

4 Inspector Tola Ram Mirwani, raiding officer (PW-5) has fully

supported the version of the prosecution. On the appointed signal given

by PW-10 the raiding party had reached the spot and the accused was

challenged; on his personal search three GC notes in the denomination

of Rs.50/-each were recovered from him. Since this money in the pre-

raid proceedings had been coated with phenolphthalein powder, the

hand washes of the appellant were taken and they turned positive

establishing the stand of the prosecution that this was the tainted money

which had been received by the appellant from the complainant.

5 The report of the CFSL corroborated the testimony of PW-5 and

PW-1. This report of the CFSL corroborating the oral version of the

witnesses was proved through Senior Scientific Officer N.K.Prasad

(PW-6) as Ex.PW-6/A which had tested these hands-washes and pant

pocket wash of the appellant positive for phenolphthalein powder and

sodium carbonate.

6 On the basis of the aforenoted evidence collected by the

prosecution the appellant was convicted and sentenced as aforenoted.

7 In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. the appellant

had pleaded innocence; he had stated that he had been falsely implicated

in the present case. He was working in his office; he was busy from

4.00 p.m. to 6.00 p.m. The complainant came to his room and within

next few seconds 2-3 persons came to his office and took him away

forcibly for no reason; this was a case of false implication.

8      No evidence was led in defence.

9      On behalf of the appellant, arguments have been addressed in

detail. First argument addressed by the learned counsel for the appellant

is based on sanction. It is stated that the sanction order (PW-1/A)

suffers from infirmities as the date has not been mentioned; the sanction

order further recites that the consideration had been paid by the

complainant for obtaining certified copy of a sale deed of Plot No.81A,

areas 150 square yards khasra No.399, Village Badarpur, Block-V,

Sector-D, Najafgarh Road, Delhi; whereas the village is named

Bindapur. It is established that there has been no application of mind by

the Sanctioning Authority in granting the sanction. The whole sanction

stands vitiated. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon a

judgment of a Coordinate Bench of this Court in Crl.A. No.976/2010

titled K.C.Singh Vs. CBI decided on 10.8.2011. Second submission of

the appellant is based on the oral testimony of the witnesses. Attention

has been drawn to the statement of the complainant (PW-4); submission

being that she is totally hostile; she has not supported the version of the

prosecution. The panchwitness (PW-10) has nowhere stated that there

was any demand made by the appellant pursuant to which the bribe

money had allegedly been paid by the complainant (PW-4) to the

appellant. Submission being reiterated that in the absence of demand

the conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside. Attention has

been drawn to a certain portion of the cross-examination of PW-10;

wherein PW-10 had stated that the accused had not demanded any

money from the complainant. Submission being that even from this

document Ex.PW-10/A it is clear that no demand had been made by the

appellant. For this proposition reliance has been placed upon (2009) 9

SCC 87 V.Kanna Vs. State and 2009(2) LRC 93(SC) C.M.Girish Babu

Vs. CBI. Attention has also been drawn to the version of raid officer

(PW-5) as also the investigating officer (PW-7). Submission being that

PW-5 has stated that he had coated the tainted money with

phenolphthalein powder; this phenolphthalein powder had obviously

touched his hands; there is no deposition of PW-5 that he had washed

his hands; thus there is thus every possibility that phenolphthalein

powder from the hands of PW-5 had been transferred to the hands of the

appellant and to his pant pocket when he had searched him. As such

the evidence of the hands washes cannot be relied upon and to support

this proposition reliance has been placed upon (2011) 12 SCC 294 P.

Parasurami Reddy Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh. Attention has also

been drawn to the panchnama; submission being that that the

proceedings had not been conducted at the spot. Further submission of

the learned counsel for the appellant is that since the trial judge has

disbelieved the transaction of 27.4.1993 and as the first part of the

version of the prosecution has been disbelieved the entire story of the

prosecution has to be necessarily disbelieved. Submission being that

incident of 28.4.1993 also could not have been relied upon. To support

this submission reliance has been placed upon a judgment of the Apex

Court reported in (1977) 3 SCC 352 Hari Dev Sharma Vs. State (Delhi

Administration). On all counts benefit of doubt has to be granted to the

appellant. He is entitled for a consequential acquittal.

10 Arguments have been refuted by the learned public prosecutor.

Submission is that on no count does the impugned judgment call for any

interference. Submission being that even if the complainant (PW-4) had

turned hostile, her testimony cannot be ignored in toto; it is a well

settled law that so far the version of a hostile witness supports the

version of the prosecution, it can be relied upon to that limited extent.

To support this submission reliance has been placed upon (2012) 4 SCC

327 Bhajju @ Karan Singh v.State. On the point of sanction it is

pointed out that the date has been written in pen by the Sanctioning

Authority and merely because there is a typing error in the village i.e.

whether it is Badarpur or Bindapur will by itself not be sufficient to

vitiate the sanction. Attention has been drawn to the cross-examination

of PW-1, the Sanctioning Authority, where no single question has been

put to this witness about this so-called error which has been noted in the

sanction order. Further submission being that this argument had been

taken up for the first time before this Court and this argument has not

been addressed before the Special Judge. The sanction has been validly

granted. To support this judgment reliance has been placed upon

(2010) 8 SCC 655 State of M.P. Vs. Hari Shanker Vs. State. Learned

public prosecutor further points out that the version of PW-10 is fully

corroborative with the version of PW-5. The GC notes which were

recovered from the appellant matched the numbers of the GC notes

which were noted in the pre-raid proceedings. CFSL has also

corroborated the oral testimony of PW-5 (raid officer) holding this to be

the same tainted money. It is pointed out that the testimonies of the

aforenoted witnesses clearly establish that there was a demand. Learned

public prosecutor has placed reliance upon a judgment of the Apex

Court reported as (2009) 5 SCC 117 State of A.P. Vs. M., Radha

Krishan Murthy to support his submission that the judgment relied upon

by the learned counsel for the petitioner in the case of Hari Devi Sahrma

has been distinguished and even if the first incident of 27.4.1993 is to be

disbelieved that will not wash away or take away the authenticity and

veracity of the incident of 28.4.1993. Reliance has been placed upon

(2012) 4 SCC 289 Brajender Singh Vs. State of M.P. to support an

argument that where the accused takes benefit of putting forward his

defence in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in so far as, it

supports the case of the prosecution, such a statement can be used

against the accused; on this point the submission being that the appellant

in his defence in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has

admitted the entire incident but has stated that this was a false

implication; no reason has been spelt out for such a false implication and

more over the fact that this matter had not been reported to any senior

officer that he has been falsely implicated also goes against him. On no

count does this defence merit any consideration. Impugned judgment

calls for any interference.

11 Arguments have been heard and record has been perused.

12 The version of the prosecution is that the complainant (PW-4)

wanted to obtain certified copy of the sale deed of her plot bearing

No.81A, measuring 150 sq. yards, Khasra No.339, Village Bindarpur,

Block-V, Sector-D, Najafgarh Road, Delhi and for which purpose she

had gone to the office of Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate where she met

the appellant who was a record keeper. He had told her that this sale

deed would be made available to her only when she did "sewapani"; it

was agreed that Rs.250/- would be paid by the complainant to the

appellant; of which Rs.100/- was paid on 27.4.1993; complainant had

agreed to pay the balance sum of Rs.150/- on the following day at 4.00

p.m. However, since she did not wish to pay this bribe amount she

made a complaint. This complaint is Ex. PW-5/A; it had been signed by

the complainant. On oath this witness has admitted her signatures on

Ex.PW-5/A but has stated that she had signed this document without

reading its contents. She has further admitted that she had passed higher

secondary examination and can read both hindi and english language.

She had also admitted her signatures on the memos including the pre-

raid report and post raid report Ex.PW-4/B and Ex.PW-4/E. She has

stated that she had signed these documents at the instance of the police.

She admitted that she did not report the matter to the higher authorities

about the police having obtained her signatures forcibly.

13 This witness has otherwise not supported the version of the

prosecution but this part of her evidence clearly shows that she had

given a complaint on 28.4.1993 which was to the effect that she had

paid a sum of Rs.100/- to the appellant on 27.4.1993 and had agreed to

pay balance sum of Rs.150/- on the following day as a demand had been

made by the appellant stating that a certified copy of the sale deed of her

plot would be made available to her only if she had given this sum of

Rs.150/-. The fact that the appellant was working as a record keeper in

the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate is not disputed. The fact

that he was present in the office on that day is also not disputed; in fact,

it has been proved by Raghubir Singh (PW-8) who had brought the

attendance register from the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate,

substantiating this position. Even otherwise, the accused himself in his

statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has admitted his presence in his

office. The aforenoted evidence of PW-4 further establishes that the

complainant had gone to the Anti Corruption Branch; a complaint had

been signed by PW-4 in the Anti Corruption Branch; it has come on

record that PW-4 is an educated lady; there was no reason for her not to

read Ex.PW-5/A before signing it; there is also no explanation as to why

she had gone to the Anti Corruption Branch at all if she had no reason to

do so.

14 The relevance of a statement of a hostile witness was examined

by the Apex Court in (2012) 4 SCC 327 Bhajju @ Karan Singh v.State .

It had noted as follows:

"We may notice, at this stage that the court can even take into consideration the part of the statement of a hostile witness which supports the case of the prosecution. Therefore, it cannot be said that whenever prosecution witnesses are declared hostile, it must prove fatal to the case of the prosecution."

15 It has thus been established that PW-4 had made a complaint

(Ex.PW-5/A) duly signed by her; this was on 28.4.1993; the pre-raid

and post raid proceedings recorded on 28.4.1993 had also been signed

by her.

16 Panchwitness has been examined as PW-10. He has fully

supported the case of the prosecution and has elaborated the incident in

detail on oath in court. He has deposed that on 28.4.1993 he was asked

to the join pre-raid proceedings. The complainant i.e. PW-4 had come

to the Anti Corruption Branch and had made her complaint Ex.PW-5/A

which was recorded in his presence and signed by him at point B. She

had produced three GC notes in the denomination of Rs.50/- each which

had been coated with phenolphthalein powder and a live demonstration

was given in front of PW-10 showing that when these treated notes were

dipped into the solution of sodium carbonate they would turn pink.

Instructions were imparted to the complainant and PW-10 that after the

copy of the sale deed had been supplied to PW-4 the money would be

given by her upon which the appointed signal would be given by

PW-10. PW-10 has further deposed that on the fateful date at 4.00 p.m.

he and the complainant went to the room of the appellant and contacted

him and PW-4 asked for copy of the sale deed; the appellant replied that

same was not ready; he thereafter became busy with his work. It is only

at about 6.00 p.m. that PW-4 had given Rs.150/- to the appellant as

„Mehnatana‟ which money was accepted by the appellant in his right

hand and after counting the same with both his hands he kept it in his

left pant pocket. Signal was given by PW-10 pursuant to which the

raiding party reached the spot. Further deposition of PW-10 being that

PW-5 had challenged the accused stating that he had accepted the bribe

money upon which the accused became nervous and on the search of the

left pant pocket of the appellant Rs.150/- were recovered. These GC

notes which were three in number in the denomination of Rs.50/- each

seized vide memo Ex.PW-4/A their numbers matched with the numbers

given of the notes in the pre-raid proceedings. Thereafter hands washes

and pant pocket wash of the appellant were taken and transferred into

separate bottles. They were marked as LHW-I and LHW-II, RHW-I

and RHW-II and LPW-I and LPW-II; they were seized and sealed.

PW-10 stuck to his stand in the cross-examination. He has stated that

several persons were sitting in the room of the appellant when he

reached there and he remained there up to 6.00 p.m.; the complainant

repeatedly requested the appellant to give the certified copy of the sale

deed but he stated that he was busy. PW-4 and PW-10 remained sitting

there; the public dealing with the accused continued up to quarter to six

i.e. up to 5.45 p.m. In another part of his cross-examination he stated

that all the proceedings i.e. taking washes wash and writing work were

taken place at the Anti Corruption Branch, Tis Hazari. He further stated

that the accused had not demanded any money from the complainant. It

is in the last para of PW-4 which has been highlighted by the learned

counsel for the appellant to put forward an argument that no demand has

been made by the appellant and in the absence of any demand offence

under Section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the said Act is not

complete. This Court shall revert back to this argument at a later time.

17 PW-5 is the raid-officer. He has corroborated the version of PW-

10. He stated that after explaining the pre-raid proceedings, he on the

appointed signal having been given by PW-10 went into the room of the

appellant where he apprehended the accused. Rs.150/- were recovered

from the left pant pocket of the appellant which were three GC notes in

the denomination of Rs.50/- each. The numbers of the recovered GC

notes were the same as noted in the pre-raid report (Ex.PW-4/D). Shri

N.K.Prasad (PW-6) had examined the right hand and left hand washes

of the appellant as also the left pant pocket wash and had reported vide

his report Ex.PW-6/A that all these washes had tested positive for

phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate.

18 The main thrust of the arguments of the learned counsel for the

appellant is that no demand has been mentioned in the version of PW-10

which is the panchwitness and PW-4, the complainant, also being hostile

the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained on the sole version of

PW-5 alone.

19 This Court is not in agreement with the submission of the learned

counsel for the appellant. PW-4 is the complainant; she had admittedly

given a complaint to the Anti Corruption Branch which has been proved

as Ex.PW-5/A. In this complaint, she had detailed that the appellant had

made a demand of Rs.250/- from her for processing the papers to supply

a certified copy of the sale deed of her plot. Although on oath, in court

she had denied this version but her complaint which is a written

document stands admitted. PW-10 has confirmed the fact that the

complaint of PW-4 was given by PW-4 in his presence and he had

signed at point B. This is further corroborated by the testimony of

PW-5 who has written this complaint and had also signed the document.

Both PW-5 and PW-10 on oath having detailed this complaint

(Ex.PW-5/A) in their versions on oath in court and which document

clearly recites that the appellant had made a demand for supplying a

certified copy of the sale deed to the victim, coupled with the version of

PW-5 wherein he has reiterated that on 28.4.1993 at the time of the raid

he along with PW-4 was sitting in the office of the appellant for two

hours; up to 5.45 p.m. when public dealing was over and at about 6.00

p.m. on the appellant supplying a certified copy of the sale deed to

PW-4 the bribe money of Rs.150/- was handed over by PW-4 to the

appellant in his presence. This version of PW-5 has also been

corroborated by PW-10 who has stated that on the appointed signal

being given he had reached the spot; challenged the accused that he had

accepted the bribe money; on search, from the left pant pocket of the

accused the tainted money of Rs.150/- was recovered. The fact that this

tainted money has been recovered from the left pant pocket of the

accused has been corroborated by the versions of both PW-5 and PW-10

who had deposed that the number of the GC notes recovered from the

left pant pocket of the appellant matched the numbers were noted in the

pre-raid proceedings i.e. in Ex.PW-4/B.

20 This evidence on record clearly establishes that on the demand of

the appellant which demand had initially started on 27.4.1993 and out of

which the partial amount of Rs.100/- has been paid on the same day, the

balance sum of Rs.150/- was paid on the following day as had been

agreed. It is not as if the demand which was made by the appellant on

27.4.1993 had come to a close. The judgment of Hari Dev Sharma

(supra) relied upon by the learned counsel for the appellant besides

being distinguishable on facts had been also been considered by the

Supreme court in the case of M.RAdha Krishan Murthy (supra) and has

been distinguished. The Supreme Court in this context had noted herein

as under:

"15. On a bare reading of the judgment in Hari Dev Sharma's case (supra), it is clear that no rule of universal application was laid down that whenever a part of the case relating to demand and acceptance is not acceptable, the whole case would fail even if the case relating to trap, recovery of money and chemical test by the prosecution is established. When part of the prosecution version relating to demand and acceptance of bribe stands by itself, the ratio of the decision does not apply."

21 In M.RAdha Krishan Murthy (supra) an earlier demand had been

made on 13.6.1989; the demand was of Rs.5000/- of which part payment

of Rs.2000/- was paid on the same day and the balance was to be paid

on 19.6.1989. Trial court had convicted the appellant but the High

Court in appeal had noted that since the first demand of Rs.2000/- has

not been proved the remaining transaction could also not be accepted.

This was set aside by the Supreme Court. In this context the Supreme

Court had made the following observations which are relevant; they

reads as under:

"16. Unfortunately, in the instant case the High Court has lost sight of the aforesaid aspects and by placing reliance on the aforesaid decision in Hari Devi Sharma case has directed acquittal.

17. "15 ...... Courts should not place reliance on decisions without discussing as to how the factual situation fits in with the fact situation of the decision on which reliance is placed. Observations of Courts are neither to be read as Euclid's theorems nor as provisions of the statute and that too taken out of their context. These observations must be read in the context in which they appear to have been stated. Judgments of courts are not to be construed as statutes. To interpret words, phrases and provisions of a statute, it may become necessary for judges to embark into lengthy discussions but the discussion is meant to explain and not to define. Judges interpret statutes, they do not interpret judgments. They interpret words of statutes; their words are not to be interpreted as statutes. In London Graving Dock Co. Ltd. v. Horton 1951 AC 737 at p.761, Lord Mac Dermot observed:

„The matter cannot, of course, be settled merely by treating the ipsissima vertra of Willes, J as though they were part of an Act of Parliament and applying the rules of interpretation appropriate thereto. This is not to detract

from the great weight to be given to the language actually used by that most distinguished judge......‟

16. In Home Office v. Dorset Yacht Co Ltd. 1970 (2) All ER 294 Lord Reid said, "Lord Atkin's speech...is not to be treated as if it was a statutory definition. It will require qualification in new circumstances." Megarry, J in Shepherd Homes Ltd. Vs. Sandham (1971) 1 WLR 1062 observed: "One must not, of course, construe even a reserved judgment of even Russell L.J. as if it were an Act of Parliament........" And, in Herrington v. British Railways Board 1972 (2) WLR 537 Lord Morris said:

There is always peril in treating the words of a speech or judgment as though they are words in a legislative enactment, and it is to be remembered that judicial utterances made in the setting of the facts of a particular case.

17. Circumstantial flexibility, one additional or different fact may make a world of difference between conclusions in two cases. Disposal of cases by blindly placing reliance on a decision is not proper."

22 There is no doubt to the proposition that each case depends upon

its own individual facts. In the instant case merely because the accused

has been given benefit of doubt regarding the incident of 27.4.1993 as

the bribe money of Rs.100/- had not been recovered, it does not wash

away the incident of 28.4.1993. PW-4 in her complaint (Ex.PW-5/A)

also speaks of the incident of 27.4.1993. The trial judge has also

correctly noted that since the demand was made on the previous day

there was no occasion for the accused to have renewed this demand in

words again; the fact that he has accepted the sum of Rs.150/-

voluntarily and willingly is evident from the fact that this money had

been accepted by him in his right hand and thereafter counted by both

his hands and then put it in his left pant pocket; this was a voluntary act

of the appellant.

23 Testimony of PW-10 is also corroborated by the version of the

raid officer (PW-5). There is no reason for the raid officer to have

falsely implicated the accused. No such specific suggestion has also

been given to PW-5. CFSL report Ex.PW-6/A is yet another clinching

piece of corroborative evidence. The hands washes of the appellant and

his left pant pocket wash had turned pink reiterating the positivity of the

presence of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate showing that

it was the same tainted money which had been used in the pre-raid

proceedings; the numbers of the GC notes also tallied.

24 The defence of the accused recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

shows that the appellant has admitted that the incident had taken place in

his office on 28.4.1993; PW-4 was present in his office; there was no

occasion for her to go to the office of the appellant except for obtaining

the certified copy of the sale deed of her plot. On this count PW-4 has

again sought to shield the appellant and has stated that she has not gone

to the Anti Corruption Branch on 28.4.1993. One is trying to protect the

other but in this scenario they have ended up with contradicting one

another. If the defence of the accused was honest and he had been

falsely implicated nothing prevented him from making a report to any

higher authority (which is also his version in his statement recorded

under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) but admittedly no such report was made to

any higher body. This defence is also evident from the line of the cross-

examination of the witnesses of the prosecution; this defence is clearly

an afterthought and on legal advice and is nothing but sham.

25 Sanction Ex.PW-1/A has been given by a due application of

mind. The Sanctioning Authority has given a brief narration of the

entire facts before granting sanction and has further gone on to recite in

Ex.PW-1/A that the sanction has been accorded after due application of

mind. PW-1 on oath also stated that he had satisfied himself from the

contents of the documents that a prima facie case is made out against the

accused before granting sanction against him; this has been reiterated in

his cross-examination. Merely because there is difference in the name

of village; whether it is village Badarpur or Bindapur could be nothing

but a typographical error as all other details of the incident as also the

details of the plot number of the property are correct. Moreover, PW-1

has also not been cross-examined on this aspect. This argument had also

not been raised before the Special Judge. This argument appears to be

belated and an afterthought.

26 The Apex Court has time and again reiterated that an officer

granting sanction is not required to indicate that he has personally

scrutinized the file for arriving at a satisfaction for granting sanction;

there is also no prescribed format for grant of sanction. The narration of

events for granting of a sanction for prosecution which has been detailed

in the sanction order clearly indicates the reasons for grant of such

sanction. In no manner can it be said that the sanction order is not a

valid order.

27 The presumption under Section 20 of the said Act had also been

raised by the trial judge in favour of the prosecution.

28 Prosecution on all counts has been able to establish its case to the

hilt.

29 Accused was admittedly a public servant working as a record

keeper in the office of the Sub-Registrar, Kashmere Gate. He had

agreed to accept a bribe amount of Rs.250/- of which Rs.110/- which

was the balance amount was received by him on 28.4.1993. He had

used illegal means to obtain this pecuniary advantage for himself.

Ingredients of both Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of

the said Act have been fulfilled. No argument has been addressed on the

point of sentence. The impugned judgment had recorded a minimum

punishment. The minimum punishment under Section 7 of the said Act

is 6 months RI and the minimum sentence under Section 13(1)(d) read

with Section 13(2) is 1 year RI. The appellant has suffered incarceration

for 1 day only. The appellant has abused his official capacity for doing

a job for which there is a bounden duty to perform that act and he had

demanded and accepted a bribe amount. The impugned judgment on no

point either on merits or on the point of sentence calls for any

interference.

30     Appeal dismissed.

31     Bail bond cancelled. Surety discharged. Appellant be taken into

custody so serve the remaining sentence.




                                      INDERMEET KAUR, J
MARCH18, 2014
ndn