Back
2011 Supreme(Del) 303
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
Appellants: Sh Mohan Lal Walia
Vs.
Respondent: State (C.B.I)
Crl. A. 113/2003
Decided On: 21.04.2011
Counsels:
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff: K B Andley, Sr. Adv. and M Shamikh, Adv.
For Respondents/Defendant: Sonia Mathur, Adv.
The prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt in order to secure a conviction.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) READ WITH 13(2) - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - APPELLANT, A POLICE OFFICER, DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED BRIBE FROM THE COMPLAINANT FOR NOT TAKING ACTION AGAINST HIM IN A CRIMINAL CASE - TRAP LAID - APPELLANT CAUGHT RED-HANDED - HELD, GUILTY - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a police officer, demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from the complainant for not taking action against him in a criminal case. A trap was laid and the appellant was caught red-handed. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the conviction of the appellant. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness, and the trap laying officer. The court also relied on the chemical analysis report which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate on the appellant's hands and trouser pocket.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the appellant was guilty of demanding and accepting bribe?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The court relied on the testimonies of the complainant, the shadow witness, and the trap laying officer. The court also relied on the chemical analysis report which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate on the appellant's hands and trouser pocket. 2. The court held that the appellant was guilty of demanding and accepting bribe. The court relied on the fact that the appellant had demanded and accepted the bribe from the complainant in order to not take action against him in a criminal case.
Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed. The bail bond and the security furnished was cancelled. The appellant was taken into custody forthwith and was directed to suffer the remaining part of the sentence, as directed by the trial court.
Rajiv Shakdher, J.
1. The captioned appeal has been preferred under the provisions of Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the "Code?) against the judgment and order of sentence dated 11.02.2003 and 13.02.2003 respectively passed in CC No. 26/97 RC No. 72(A)/96/C.B.I./ACB/New Delhi by the Special Judge, Tis Hazari Delhi.
2. By virtue of the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been found guilty under the provisions of Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the "P C Act?).
3. Briefly, the case of the prosecution is as follows:
4. On 21.09.1996 at about 1200 hrs one Sh Purshottam Singh (PW6) made a complaint (Ex PW6/A) dated 21.09.1996 to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch (in short "ACB?), CBI, New Delhi about, a bribe, in the sum of Rs 2000/- having been demanded by the Appellant. The complainant (PW6) alleged that the cause for seeking a bribe from him was his involvement in a criminal case filed against him under Section 308/323/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short "IPC?) which was being investigated by the Appellant. The said criminal case against the complainant (PW6) was instituted in turn based on a complaint filed by his neighbours. It was alleged in the complaint (Ex PW6/A) by PW6 that the Appellant had warned him that in case the said bribe was not paid by 5.00 pm on that very day, he and the other co-accused, would end up in jail on the basis of the statement of the third witness, who was still to be examined.
4.1 In the complaint (Ex PW6/A) a reference was made to the complainant's (PW6?s) fracas with his neighbours which took place on 13.09.1996, and the initial demand for bribe (to which reference is made above), which was made of him a day prior (i.e., 20.09.1996) when, he was being accompanied to Court by the Appellant.
5. On the basis of the afore-mentioned complaint (Ex PW6/A), a FIR (Ex PW8/B) was registered.
6. Consequent thereto, the Superintendent of Police, ACB, CBI entrusted the case to Sh B K Pradhan (PW8), Inspector, CBI. Upon perusal of the complaint (Ex PW6/A) he set about, to lay a trap, to establish the veracity of the allegations made in the complaint (Ex PW6/A). Resultantly, a trap team was formed, and services of two independent witnesses was sought; one from the Oriental Insurance Company, Daryaganj and other from Punjab National Bank (in short "PNB?), Daryaganj, Delhi. Sh Govind Ram Rawal (PW3) was summoned from PNB, while Mr Mahesh Mathur (PW4) was summoned from Oriental Insurance Company. Mr Mahesh Mathur (PW4), at the relevant point in time, was employed as the Development Officer.
6.1 Govind Ram Rawal (PW3) and Mahesh Mathur (PW4) were introduced to the complainant (PW6) and also shown the complaint (Ex PW6/A) filed by him. Both, Govind Ram Rawal (PW3) and Mahesh Mathur (PW4) were given an opportunity to interact with the complainant (PW6) so that they could satisfy themselves as regards the ingredients of the allegations made by the complainant (PW6) against the Appellant.
6.2 Thereafter, B K Pradhan (PW8) who had been assigned the role of the Trap Laying Officer (in short "TLO?) familiarized the trap team, which included the two independent witnesses Govind Ram Rawal (PW3) and Mahesh Mathur (PW4) as to how Phenolphthalein powder reacted when brought in contact with a solution of Sodium Carbonate powder and used in executing the trap.
6.3 In this regard the money arranged by the complainant (PW6), i.e., a sum of Rs 2000/- in the form of 20 currency notes of a denomination of Rs 100 each Exs PW-1 to PW-20 (hereinafter referred to as "GC notes?) were treated with Phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant (PW6), who kept them in the right side pocket of his Pajama. In order to ensure that the complainant (PW6) was not carrying anything else except the treated notes, a personal search of the complainant (PW6) was carried out. The
