The requirement of proving the offense beyond a reasonable doubt and the strictness of the penal provisions under the PC Act.

Indermeet Kaur, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence 01.02.2006 & 02.02.2006 respectively wherein the appellant Rajinder Prasad Sharma has been convicted under Section 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the PC Act) and has been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 2 years and to pay a fine of Rs.20,000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for 4 months.

2. On 27.09.1999 ACP Arjun Singh (PW-1) had made a complaint to the Anti-Corruption Branch which was to the effect that the appellant/accused Rajinder Prasad who was working as Inspector in the State Transport Department (STD) had offered to pay a bribe to PW-1 on account of the fact that since he was illegally extorting money from drivers while checking the vehicles at Rajokri Chowk and this activity had been brought to the notice of PW-1 and in order that PW-1 would not report the matter to the higher officers of the appellant, bribe of Rs.15,000/-had been offered by the appellant to PW-1. Complaint to the said effect was filed before the Anti-Corruption Branch. This complaint has been proved as Ex.PW-5/A. It was recorded by the raid officer ACP Niranjan Singh examined as PW 5. PW-1 has admitted his signatures on this complaint but has stated that these signatures were obtained on this complaint without his knowing the contents of the complaint; his submission on oath being that some persons from the Anti-Corruption Branch had come to his house in the early morning hours of 27.09.1999 where he had signed 1012 documents at their asking without reading their contents.

3. Pursuant to this complaint (Ex.PW-5/A), a raiding party had been constituted and on 27.09.1999 since it had been agreed that the appellant would visit the house of the complainant on that date, the panch-witness Y.P. Talwar (PW-3) had been apprised of the proceedings and he had been directed that on appropriate signal being given, the raiding party would reach the spot. The panchnama recorded at the spot has been proved as Ex.PW-3/A. As per this panchnama, the appellant (Inspector Rajinder Sharma) along with HC Mahender Singh had visited the house of PW1; bribe money amounting to Rs.6,000/- had been given to PW-1 which was in the presence of PW-3; on the appointed signal being given i.e. “Savita Campa Lao”, the raiding party including PW-5 reached the spot. PW-5 challenged the accused stating that he had taken the bribe money. The tainted money i.e. the sum of Rs.6,000/-comprising of 60 notes in the denomination of Rs100/- each were seized vide seizure memo Ex.PW-1/D.

4. On the basis of the aforenoted evidence, the challan was filed; prosecution has examined 6 witnesses; in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.PC, the appellant had denied offering any bribe money to PW-1; submission being that although he had gone to the house of PW-1 on the fateful day i.e. on 27.09.1999 which was in connection with some work of PW-1 and on his asking; there was no occasion for the appellant to offer any bribe to PW-1 as they were both from different departments and the appellant had no connection with PW-1.

5. No evidence has been led in defence.

6. On behalf of the appellant, arguments had been addressed in detail. It is submitted that PW-1 the complainant has not supported the version of prosecution and has categorically stated that sum of Rs.6,000/- which had been recovered from his house had been put on the table by HC Mahender Singh; in fact the appellant was not present at that time; he had gone to purchase sweets from the market; it is pointed out that PW-3, the panch witness is also hostile and he has also given the same version as PW-1. It is further submitted that the judgment of the Sessions Judge convicting the appellant on the sole testimony of PW-5 is clearly an illegality for the reason that PW-5 had admittedly reached the spot after the transaction was over and although undisputedly the bribe money