Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 302
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Appellants: Suresh Chand Joshi
Vs.
Respondent: CBI
Crl. A. 56/2003
Decided On: 21.04.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: Anurag Jain, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Sonia Mathur and Sushil Kumar Dubey, Advs.
The presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable, but the mere recovery of tainted notes divorced from the circumstances would not be sufficient to convict the accused.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 7 AND 13(2) READ WITH 13(1)(D) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - RECOVERY OF TREATED CURRENCY NOTES - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 - CONVICTION - APPEAL AGAINST CONVICTION AND SENTENCE - DISMISSED.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant was convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (P.C. Act). The Appellant had demanded a bribe of Rs. 10,000/- as illegal gratification for forbearing from demolishing his house. A trap team was set up and the Appellant was caught red-handed accepting the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe. The court also found that the Appellant was in a position to convey the impression to the complainant that he could harm his interest in as much as get his house demolished. The court further found that the recovery of the treated currency notes from the Appellant was sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that the Appellant had committed the offence.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe? 2. Whether the Appellant was in a position to convey the impression to the complainant that he could harm his interest in as much as get his house demolished? 3. Whether the recovery of the treated currency notes from the Appellant was sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that the Appellant had committed the offence?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the Appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe. The court relied on the testimony of the complainant, the independent witnesses, and the recovery of the treated currency notes from the Appellant. 2. The court held that the Appellant was in a position to convey the impression to the complainant that he could harm his interest in as much as get his house demolished. The court relied on the testimony of the complainant and the fact that the Appellant was involved in the demolition work. 3. The court held that the recovery of the treated currency notes from the Appellant was sufficient to draw a presumption under Section 20 of the P.C. Act that the Appellant had committed the offence.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (here in after 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 installments of Rs. 5,000/- each. The first installment was to be paid on that very date i.e., 06.12.1991 and the second installment were 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 colorless solution of sodium carbonate . The colorless solution of sodium carbonate turned pink. It was explained to all concerned including the said independent witnesses that the colorless solution of sodium carbonate turns pink on coming in contact with phenolphthale in powder, which was smeared on the left hand of Nankoo Ram. After the demonstration was over, the pink sol
