Back
2013 Supreme(Del) 1587
High Court of Delhi
SIDDHARTH MRIDUL, J.
Tirath Singh Rawat
Versus
C.B.I.
Criminal Appeal No. 461 of 2003
Decided On : 27-11-2013
For the Petitioner:A.P. Mohanty, with P.K. Patnaik, Advocates.
For the Respondent:P.K. Sharma, Standing Counsel with Anil Kumar Singh, Bakul Jain, Advocates.
The broad interpretation of 'accepts or obtains' under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act allows for the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification to be established without the physical acceptance by the public servant.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Demand and Acceptance - Section 120-B IPC, Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a Sub Inspector, was convicted for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from a complainant. The prosecution's case was based on the complainant's testimony, audio recordings, and recovery of tainted money. The appellant challenged the recovery and authenticity of evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the complainant and shadow witnesses credible, and minor contradictions were attributed to lapses in memory. The court relied on the audio recording, which was duly sealed and identified by the complainant, to establish the demand for bribe. The recovery of tainted money from the appellant's associate was deemed sufficient to establish the appellant's involvement.
Issues: The issues revolved around the credibility of witnesses, authenticity of evidence, and the requirement of physical acceptance of illegal gratification by the public servant.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification were proved, raising a presumption against the appellant under Section 20 of the PC Act. The court rejected the argument that physical acceptance by the public servant is a prerequisite, emphasizing the broad interpretation of 'accepts or obtains' under Section 7.
Final Decision: The appellant was found guilty under Section 120 IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act, and the appeal was dismissed. The appellant was ordered to be taken into custody.
Siddharth Mridul, J.
1. The Appellant herein has preferred this appeal under Section 27 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as “PC Act”) read with Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as “the Code”) against the judgment dated 11.07.2003 and the sentence dated 14.07.2003 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi. The appellant has been convicted under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as “IPC”) read with Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act. The appellant has also been held guilty and convicted for the substantive offences under Section 7 and 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and accordingly, has been directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of four years. In addition, a fine of Rs.500/- has been imposed. The sentence of imprisonment is to run concurrently. In the event of default in payment of fine, the appellant will be required to undergo further rigorous imprisonment of three months on each count. The fine has already been paid by the appellant. The order dated 20.11.2003 evidencing the same is on record.
2. The substratum of the charge as against the appellant, who was Sub Inspector, is of having demanded and accepted illegal gratification from one Praveen Kumar, the complainant. The case set up by the prosecution against the appellant is briefly enunciated as under:-
(i) The complainant, PW-2 is in the business of property dealing and had engaged one Ms Neelam Rani as a receptionist in connection with his work at WZ 47 Lajwanti Garden Chowk, New Delhi, but had terminated her services on 26.06.1995 after clearing her dues. It was alleged that on 24.07.1995, the appellant accompanied by Virender Kumar and the said Neelam Rani came to his office. The appellant informed him that the said Neelam Rani had made a complaint alleging that PW2 owed Rs.5,000/- to her. As per PW-2, the appellant wanted a bribe of Rs.5,000/- for disposing of the complaint and on request of the complainant tore off the complaint of Neelam Rani, which he had earlier penned in his own hand. It was further alleged that the appellant had asked him to make the payment of bribe money in the evening of 26.07.1995 to Virender. PW-2 reported the matter to Special Branch, CBI and requested legal action be taken in this matter. A complaint was lodged which is exhibited as Ex PW-2/B.
(ii) It is the case of the prosecution that PW9, the Trap Laying Officer (TLO), requisitioned service of two independent witnesses namely Jai Ram (PW-4) and Nem Singh (PW-5), both officials of the Vigilance Department of NDMC and in their presence arranged for the complainant to speak with the appellant on telephone and for the said conversation to be tape-recorded. A memo (Ex.PW-2/A) with regard to the said proceedings was prepared which indicates that the telephone call was made to telephone no.5503840 from telephone no.4362494 (in the office of CBI). The tape-recorded conversation is stated to have involved both the appellant and Virender speaking with the complainant and in the course of the said conversation, the allegations of demand of bribe are stated to have been substantiated. The TLO also prepared a transcript (Ex.PW-2/D) of the said audio recording contained in cassette Ex.PX, which was thereafter put in a cloth parcel and sealed.
(iii) The TLO then asked the complainant to arrange the money for the trap and instructed him and the two independent witnesses to come to the CBI office on the next day. It is stated that the complainant had arranged cash Rs.4,000/- in the form of 40 currency notes of Rs.100/- each (Ex.P1 to Ex.P40). These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder, and a demonstration of the application of said powder was given for knowledge of members of the raiding party. The numbers of currency notes were noted down. The treated currency notes were given to PW-2 and he was instructed to hand
