1. This appeal by Kanti Prasad Tyagi is directed against a judgment dated 13th February 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in Complaint Case No. 49 of 2002 convicting him of the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13 (1)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). It is also against the order of sentence dated 13th February 2008 passed by the Special Judge sentencing the Appellant to undergo rigorous imprisonment (RI) for a period of two years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for a period of two months and further to undergo RI for a period two years and a fine of Rs. 3,000 for the offence under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, to undergo a further SI for a period of two months.

2. The case of the prosecution was that one Raj Kumar @ Babloo, the Complainant (PW-6) was running a shop of repairing puncture of tyre and tubes under the name and style of Vivek Tyres near Kirti Nanak Filling Station, AP Block, Shalimar Bagh. It is stated that around 10 days prior to 17th August 2001, Constable Ranbir Singh, the co-accused took his motorcycle to the shop of PW-6 for repairing the puncture. When PW-6 informed Constable Ranbir Singh that the valve of his tube had been broken, Constable Ranbir Singh is alleged to have told the Complainant that it is he who had broken the valve and had to replace the tube. PW-6 under compulsion stated to have replaced the tube. It is alleged that Constable Ranbir Singh was annoyed with PW-6 and on 10th August 2001, took him to the police station and there Head Constable Yogender Singh informed PW-6 that a case has been lodged against him and asked him to arrange for a surety and Rs. 5,000. According to the PW-6, after much persuasion and after accepting Rs. 3,000 as bribe Constable Ranbir Singh and HC Yogender released him. On that very date, Constable Ranbir Singh asked PW-6 to pay Rs. 5000 per month failing which he would be implicated in some other case. After much persuasion Constable Ranbir Singh agreed to accept Rs. 3,000 as bribe. However, PW-6 expressed his inability to pay the amount in one go and thus Constable Ranbir Singh is alleged to have agreed to accept the bribe amount in two instalments of Rs.1,500 each. The first instalment was to be paid at around 7.00 p.m. on 17th August 2001.

3. The case of the prosecution was that PW-6 was against giving bribe and therefore, went to Anti Corruption Branch (ACB) on 17th August 2001 and his complaint (Ex. PW 5/A) was recorded. PW-6 handed over three government currency (GC) notes of Rs. 500 each to Inspector N.S. Minhas, the Raid Officer (PW-7). The GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein and a demonstration was given to the panch witness, S.M.A. Jafri, a Junior Engineer (Civil), Irrigation Flood Control (PW-5). A pre-raid report was prepared (Ex. PW-5/B).

4. At around 4.20 pm on 17th August 2001, Raid Officer (PW-7), the Complainant (PW-6), panch witness (PW-5), Inspector M.S. Sangha (PW- 9), the Investigating Officer (IO) and three to four members of the raiding party along with the driver left the ACB for Nanak Kriti Filling Station, Shalimar Bagh in a government vehicle. Inspector Sangha remained in the government vehicle whereas PWs 5 and 6 went towards the shop.

5. The Appellant who was a Constable attached to Police Station Shalimar Bagh is alleged to have come to the tyre puncture shop of PW-6 at around 5.35 p.m. on a two wheeler scooter. There was one pillion rider in plain clothes whose name was later heard as Sheoraj Singh. PW-7 stated to have received a predetermined signal from PW-5. Thereupon PW-7 along with the raiding party rushed to the spot. PW-5 is stated to have informed PW-7 that the Appellant demanded bribe amount by ‘gesture and words’. PW-6 had inquired from the Appellant about Constable Ranbir Singh and the Appellant is supposed to have told PW-6 that he had