1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th January 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge (CBI) in CC No. 07/03 convicting the Appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 28th January 2008 sentencing him to two years rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment for fifteen days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and RI for two and a half years with a fine of Rs. 15,000, and in default, to undergo SI for fifteen days for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. By an order dated 26th February 2008, this Court suspended the sentence awarded to the Appellant during the pendency of the appeal, subject to terms.

The case of the prosecution

3. The case of the prosecution was that one Ms. Sabina, the maid servant of Mr. Qayum Qureshi (PW5) and his wife Smt. Zeenat Qureshi (PW6) went missing on 18th March 2002. A report to that effect was lodged by Smt. Khushnudh Begum, the mother-in-law of PW5. Daily Diary (‘DD’) Entry 29A was made in that regard. Assistant Sub-Inspector (‘ASI’) Ram Darsh, Police Station (‘PS’) Shalimar Bagh, Delhi was directed to inquire into the matter. On 18th June 2002, the Appellant SI A.K. Dubey joined duty as Divisional Head of PS Shalimar Bagh, Delhi. He was briefed about all the pending matters, including the missing report of Ms. Sabina by ASI Ram Darsh.

4. According to prosecution, on 19th June 2002, the Appellant along with ASI Ram Darsh and some constables conducted a search at the residence of PW5 and brought him to the PS, where he was threatened by the Appellant. According to PW5, when he was brought to the PS, Ms. Sabina was already there and he was forced to sign on DD. He alleged that neither was Ms. Sabina sent along with him nor was he allowed to talk to her.

5. However, there is a DD 35/B (Ex.PW7/C) dated 19th June 2002, which records the statement of PW5 that Sabina, on her own, came back to his house and that he had no further complaint about her going missing and does not wish to initiate any legal proceedings in that regard. It further records that he wishes to take her back with him. The DD entry records that the girl has been sent back to the custody of PW5.

6. It may be noted at this stage that Inspector B.R. Mann (PW7), who was posted at the relevant time as Station House Officer (‘SHO’) in PS Shalimar Bagh, had confirmed both the DD entries 29A and 35B. He stated that the Appellant was the Divisional Officer and in-charge of the area, from where the missing report was received and “at no point of time, he was entrusted with investigation of the above DDs.” PW7 further stated that “the missing girl was handed over to the Complainant, i.e., Qayoom Qureshi on the same day, i.e., 19.6.2002 and an entry to this effect was made in the DD by the duty officer.”

7. According to PW5, the Appellant asked him to come to the PS and demanded a bribe of Rs. 8,000 and threatened him that if the bribe amount was not paid, the Appellant would register a case of kidnapping against PW5. PW5 also alleged that he was slapped by the Appellant. PW5 stated that he then returned home and disclosed to his wife Zeenat Quereshi (PW6) that the Appellant had demanded a bribe. PW6 is then stated to have said that they should not pay the bribe. PW5 left for his work, and in his absence, the Appellant made a telephone call to his house, which was attended by PW6. The Appellant is stated to have spoken to PW6 regarding the bribe amount.

8. In his cross-examination, PW5 stated that he had a micro cassette recorder (‘MCR’) at his residence and also had an ID caller installed at his residential telephone. According to PW5, PW6 recorded the telephonic conversation between herself and the Appellant using the said MCR. In her examination-in-ch