Back
High Court of Delhi
S. MURALIDHAR, J.
Raj Kumar Varun Central Bureau of Investigation
Criminal Appeal No. 190 of 2009
Decided on: 08-07-2014
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - [SECTION 7 AND 13 (1) (D) READ WITH SECTION 13 (2)] - [SECTION 120-B OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE] - [SECTION 61 OF THE INDIAN EVIDENCE ACT, 1872] - [SECTION 535 AND 537 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, 1898] - [SECTION 20 OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988] - Conspiracy - Conscious demand and acceptance of bribe - Presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act - Link evidence - Irregularity in framing of charges - Offence under Section 120-B IPC - Charge under Section 120-B IPC failed - Individual acts attributable to the Appellant - Conscious demand and acceptance of illegal gratification - Defence of the Appellant - Evidence of defence witnesses - Sentence - Reduction of sentence.
Fact of the Case:
The Appellant, Mr. Raj Kumar Varun, DGM (Maintenance), MTNL and the co-accused, Mr. S.R. Bali, DGM (Administration), were dealing with the payment of rent for two flats. On 16th November 2000, PW6 gave a handwritten complaint to the Superintendent of Police of the Central Bureau of Investigation (CBI) at the Anti -Corruption Branch (ACB) stating that the rent for the said premises has not been paid to us for the last two months. In the said complaint, he further stated that yesterday, when I inquired about the payment of rent from Shri S.R. Bali, DGM (A), MTNL Delhi, he demanded two months' rent as bribe for timely payment of rent, failing which he threatened to cancel the lease deed of both the premises. PW6 further stated in the said complaint that when he informed Mr. Bali that he could not afford to pay such a huge amount as bribe, Mr. Bali told him that he has to share this amount with Sh. R.K. Varun, DGM (MTC) and I may talk to Shri Varun also in this regard. Thereafter, when PW6 visited the Appellant’s office and requested for the release of the rent the Appellant is alleged to have told him to first pay the Appellant’s share of the bribe equal to one month’s rent. When PW6 requested the Appellant to reduce the amount, the Appellant told him to pay the same in two or three instalments. PW6 stated in his complaint that he did not wish to pay a bribe; that he had brought Rs. 5,000 with him and requested the SP to take action against the said officers.
Finding of the Court:
The Court found that the Appellant had consciously demanded and accepted the illegal gratification. The Court also found that the Appellant had not been able to prove his defence that he was forced to pick up the GC notes by the CBI officers from the dash board of the car. The Court further found that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was attracted in the present case. The Court also found that the sentence awarded to the Appellant was excessive and reduced it to 18 months’ RI for both the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.
Issues: 1. Whether the Appellant had consciously demanded and accepted the illegal gratification? 2. Whether the Appellant had been able to prove his defence that he was forced to pick up the GC notes by the CBI officers from the dash board of the car? 3. Whether the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was attracted in the present case? 4. Whether the sentence awarded to the Appellant was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the evidence of PWs 5 and 6, to the extent as noted hereinbefore, and the fully corroborative evidence of PW7, is sufficient to prove the conscious demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the Appellant. 2. The Court held that the Appellant had not been able to prove his defence that he was forced to pick up the GC notes by the CBI officers from the dash board of the car. 3. The Court held that the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act was attracted in the present case since there was clear proof of conscious acceptance of bribe amount by the Appellant. 4. The Court held that the sentence awarded to the Appellant was excessive and reduced it to 18 months’ RI for both the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act.
Final Decision: The Court convicted the Appellant of the offences under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act and sentenced him to 18 months’ RI for both the offences with the fine imposed being unaltered and both the sentences to run concurrently.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 27th February 2009 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 89/04 convicting the Appellant under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’) and the order on sentence dated 28th February 2009 whereby the Appellant was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment (‘RI’) for two years with a fine of Rs. 10,000, and in default, to undergo simple imprisonment (‘SI’) for seven days for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act and RI for three 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. It may be mentioned at the outset that by the same impugned judgment dated 27th February 2009, the learned trial Court directed that the Complainant, Mr. Mukesh Gupta, be tried summarily for giving false evidence and directed him to show cause as to why he should not be punished for such offence.
3. While admitting this appeal on 17th March 2009, this Court suspended the sentence awarded to the Appellant.
The complaint
4. The case of the prosecution is that Mr. Mukesh Gupta (PW6) was the owner of two flats, namely, 84-A and 85-A, Pocket-VI, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, which he had given on lease to the Office of the General Manager (‘GM’) , Mahanagar Telephone Nigam Limited (‘MTNL’), Delhi at a monthly rent of Rs. 5,750 and Rs. 7,600 respectively. Two separate lease deeds were executed. In respect of the flat at 85A, Pocket-VI, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, the lease was executed on 4th November 2000 (Ex.PW6/DA), whereby the said premises was given on rent for a period of three years commencing from 11th September 2000 on a monthly rent of Rs. 7,600. However, the possession letter (Ex.PW8/C) in respect of the said flat was executed on 11th September 2000. As regards the flat at 84A, Pocket- VI, Mayur Vihar, Phase-III, Delhi, by a lease deed (Ex.PW6/DB) was executed on 6th November 2000 the said flat was given on lease to MTNL for a period of three years commencing from 4th November 2000 on a monthly rent of Rs. 5,750. The possession of the said flat was given on 4th November 2000, as evidenced by the possession letter (Ex.PW8/G).
5. The above two flats were jointly owned by PW6 and his wife. According to PW 6, the Appellant Mr. Raj Kumar Varun, DGM (Maintenance), MTNL and the co-accused, Mr. S.R. Bali, DGM (Administration), were dealing with the payment of rent for the said flats. On 16th November 2000, PW6 gave a handwritten complaint (Ex.PW6/A) to the Superintendent of Police (‘SP’) of the Central Bureau of Investigation (‘CBI’) at the Anti -Corruption Branch (‘ACB’) at the CGO Complex, New Delhi stating that “the rent for the said premises has not been paid to us for the last two months.” In the said complaint, he further stated that “Yesterday, when I inquired about the payment of rent from Shri S.R. Bali, DGM (A), MTNL Delhi, he demanded two months’ rent as bribe for timely payment of rent, failing which he threatened to cancel the lease deed of both the premises.” PW6 further stated in the said complaint that when he informed Mr. Bali that he could not afford to pay such a huge amount as bribe, Mr. Bali told him that “he has to share this amount with Sh. R.K. Varun, DGM (MTC) and I may talk to Shri Varun also in this regard.” Thereafter, when PW6 visited the Appellant’s office and requested for the release of the rent the Appellant is alleged to have told him to first pay the Appellant’s share of the bribe equal to one month’s rent. When PW6 requested the Appellant to reduce the amount, the Appellant told him to pay the same in two or three instalments. PW6 stated in his complaint that he did not wish to pay a bribe; that he had brought Rs. 5,000 with him and requested the SP to take action against the said officers.
Pre-trap proceedings
6. Mr. Man Chand (PW5), the Se
AI
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
