Back
2015 Supreme(Del) 580
High Court of Delhi
VIPIN SANGHI, J.
Rajpal Through LRs – Appellant
Versus
State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) – Respondent
Crl.A. No. 276 of 2009
Decided On : 15-04-2015
For the Appellant:Arun Birbal, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Lovkesh Sawhney, Advocate.
Headnote:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The prosecution's case was that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.200/- from the complainant for issuing an Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate. The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the validity of the sanction for prosecution, the reliability of the evidence, and the alleged irregularities in the investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted of offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (PC Act). The prosecution's case was that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs.200/- from the complainant for issuing an Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate.
Finding of the Court:
The court upheld the conviction of the appellant. It held that the sanction for prosecution was valid, the evidence was reliable, and the alleged irregularities in the investigation did not vitiate the trial.
Issues: ['Validity of the sanction for prosecution', 'Reliability of the evidence', 'Alleged irregularities in the investigation']
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the sanction for prosecution was valid because it was granted by the competent authority, the Deputy Commissioner, North East District, who was the appellant's appointing authority. The court also held that the evidence was reliable because it was corroborated by the testimony of independent witnesses and the appellant had not rebutted the presumption under Section 20 of the PC Act that he had obtained gratification as a motive or reward for issuing the OBC certificate to the complainant. Finally, the court held that the alleged irregularities in the investigation did not vitiate the trial because the prosecution had established its case beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 23.03.2009, in CC No. 85/2001, arising out of F.I.R. No. 13/2000, passed by Shri A.S. Yadav, learned Special Judge, Delhi, convicting the Appellant for the offences under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (‘PC Act’), and the order on sentence dated 24.03.2009 whereby – for the offence under Section 7, PC Act, he was sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment (‘RI’) for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo Simple Imprisonment (‘SI’) for three months, and, for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) PC Act, the Appellant had been sentenced to undergo RI for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs.3000/-, and in default of payment of fine, to undergo SI for three months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
2. At the outset, I may note that during the course of the appeal, the appellant died on 10.01.2012. The appeal has been pursued by the daughter of the deceased appellant.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 01.02.2000, complainant Nasir Khan (PW-4) submitted an application in the office of SDM, Seelampur for obtaining an Other Backward Class (OBC) certificate. On 01.03.2000, the complainant (PW-4) went to the office of the SDM, Seelampur and met the deceased appellant/accused Rajpal, who was dealing with OBC certificates in Room No.7. The Appellant informed the complainant (PW-4) that his file was missing. Thereupon, the complainant (PW-4) told the appellant that he urgently required his OBC certificate for the purpose of Civil Services Examination. The Appellant took the complainant (PW-4) to Room No. 4, where no one was present, and demanded bribe of Rs.200/- from the complainant (PW-4) and asked him to come with the bribe amount on 02.03.2000 at 1:30 PM and collect his OBC certificate. The complainant (PW-4) was against giving of bribe. Consequently, he went to Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) and got his complaint (PW-4/A) recorded in the presence of panch witness Harbir Singh (PW-6). The complainant (PW-4) took with him Rs.200/- i.e. 2 GC notes in the denomination of Rs.100/-. The raid officer (R.O.) Ms. Sudesh Kumari, ACP Vigilance (PW-7) recorded the serial numbers of those GC notes in the pre-raid proceedings (Ex. PW-4/B). Thereafter, the R.O. (PW-7) gave a demonstration by applying phenolphthalein powder on those GC notes and asking the panch witness (PW-6) to touch them with his right hand, and taking the hand wash, which turned pink. The solution so prepared was thrown away. The GC notes were handed over to the complainant (PW-4), who kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt. The raid officer (PW-7) instructed the panch witness (PW-6) to remain with the complainant (PW-4) and to hear the conversation between the complainant (PW-4) and the accused, and also watch the money transaction, and after being satisfied that the bribe has been demanded and given he was instructed to give a signal by hurling his right hand over his head. The complainant (PW-4) was further instructed to do the transaction in the presence of the shadow witness (PW-6). All the members of raiding party washed their hands.
4. The raiding party left ACB at about 1:00 P.M. in a government vehicle and reached the office of the SDM, Seelampur. The government vehicle was left in a gali at some distance away from the office of the SDM, and Inspector S.S. Sandhu (PW-9)–the Investigating Officer (I.O.) and Inspector Gopi Chand remained in the government vehicle. Panch witness (PW-6) and the complainant (PW-4) were sent inside the SDM Office, and the raid officer (PW-7) along with members of raiding team followed them and took their position outside room no.7.
5. At about 1:30 P.M., the complainant (PW-4) and panch witness (PW- 6) came out from room no. 7 along with one person and went towards the temple near the SDM Office. T
