Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, INDU MALHOTRA, JJ.
Dashrath Singh Chauhan – Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1276 of 2010
Decided On : 09-10-2018
(1972) 2 SCC 466 – Relied upon
(b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7, 13(2) r/w Section 13(1)(d) – Money accepted by and recovered from co-accused (acquitted of all charges) – Appellant also acquitted of charges u/s 120B – Twin requirement of “demand and acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant – Not proved – Appellant held entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act. (Para 29)
(1996) 11 SCC 720 – Relied upon
Finding of the Court:
Charges under PC Ac not proved against appellant.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted u/s 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but acquitted u/s 120B, IPC.
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Special Judge.
Result: Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Manohar Sapre, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the final judgment and order dated 20.07.2009 passed by the High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.447 of 2001 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appellant herein and upheld his conviction and sentence awarded by order dated 31.05.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No.53 of 1995 acquitting him of the charge under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) and convicting him for the charges under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “the PC Act”) and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs.40,000/- under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cumulatively, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months.
2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, few facts need mention hereinbelow.
3. In short, the case of the prosecution is that the appellant was an employee of Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking (DESU). At the relevant time, he was working on the post of Inspector.
4. On 28.03.1995, the complainant-Arun Kumar (PW1) lodged an FIR under Section 7 read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the appellant and another employee of DESU namely, Rajinder Kumar complaining inter alia that in January 1995, he applied for installation of an electric connection for his factory and for that purpose he met the appellant in his office where he demanded from him Rs.4000/- for doing the abovesaid work and told him that unless he pays a sum of Rs.4000/- as bribe to him, it is not possible to install the electric connection.
5. On the basis of the said FIR, the CBI through its Inspector Mr. Kaul (PW6) formed a raiding party on 29.03.1995 to implicate the appellant and then reached to his office with one shadow witness Mahinder (PW2).
6. On reaching the office, the Complainant told the appellant that he has brought Rs.4000/- as demanded by him. The appellant, however, told the Complainant to give the said money to Rajinder Kumar, who accepted the money from him. No sooner Rajinder Kumar accepted the money, than PW2 and PW6 entered in the room and caught Rajinder Kumar with the bribe money.
7. This led to initiation of the prosecution of the appellant and co-accused Rajinder Kumar for commission of the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act read with Section 120B of IPC in the Court of Special Judge Delhi. The prosecution examined their witnesses to prove the three charges framed against both the accused. The appellant also adduced defense evidence.
8. By judgment dated 31.05.2001, the Trial Court (Special Judge) held that the prosecution failed to prove the case of any conspiracy between the appellant (A1) and co-accused Rajinder Kumar (A2) in relation to the offences in question and, therefore, the charge of conspiracy against them under Section 120B IPC was held as not made out. Both the accused were, therefore, acquitted of the charge of conspiracy under Section 120B IPC.
9. The finding on this issue recorded by the Trial Court in Paras 14 and 16 reads as under:-
“14. In the case before us, there is not even slightest evidence about the existence of a criminal conspiracy between A1 and A2. Once this had been established, only then we could have read the statement of both the accused, not only against each one of them, but against the other of them and also for proving the existence of criminal conspiracy as such.
16. There is no such situation before us. There are certain statements only. In any case, once conspiracy is not established, even the statement, made by A1 against A2 are viceversa, cannot be read in evidence.”
10. The Trial Court then disbelieved the evidence of the Investigating Officer Mr. Kaul (PW6) on the ground that he himself was of a doubtful i
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
