2013 Supreme(Del) 2131
DELHI HIGH COURT
S.P.Garg, J.
Bimalkishore Pandey - Appellant
Versus
C.B.I. - Resopndent
Criminal Appeal No. 25 of 2006 & Criminal Appeal No. 36 of 2006
Decided On : 30-05-2013
For the Appellant:Mr. K.B. Andley, Sr. Adv. with Mr. M.L. Yadav, Ad#31;vocate, A.P. Mohanty, Adv. with Mr. P.K. Pattanaik, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Manoj Ohri, Spl. PP.
Active participation in a criminal conspiracy can make all involved parties liable for the offences, even if the main offender is no longer present.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 - Section 120-B, Section 7, Section 13 (1) (d), Section 13 (2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellants challenged their conviction for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988. They were accused of demanding and accepting illegal gratification and were found guilty based on the evidence presented.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellants actively participated in the demand and acceptance of bribe, and their explanations were not credible. The court upheld their conviction under Section 120B IPC.
Issues: The main issue was whether the appellants were involved in the demand and acceptance of bribe, and whether the death of the main offender absolved them of guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the appellants' active participation in the criminal conspiracy made them liable for the offences, even though the main offender had died during trial.
Final Decision: The appeals were disposed of, and the appellants were directed to surrender and serve the remainder of their sentence.
S.P. Garg, J.
1. The appellants Bimal Kishore Pandey (A-1) and Rakesh Sharma (A-2) challenge judgment dated 23.12.2005 in RC No.56(A) & 57 (A) of 1990/CBI/ACB/ND CC No.53 of 2004 by which they were held guilty for committing offences punishable under Section 120-B read with Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1988 and sentenced to undergo RI for one year with fine Rs.10,000/- each in RC No.56 (A)/90 and RI for one and a half year with fine of Rs.25,000 each in RC No.57(A)/90. Both the complaints cases 56 (A)/90 and 57 (A)/90 were clubbed and tried jointly as the evidence in both the cases was common. During trial, B.K.Ahluwalia expired and proceedings against him stood abated.
2. In RC No.56/A/90-DLI Arun Kaushik, Proprietor, Kaushik Orthopedics Corporation, Sameypur lodged complaint with CBI on 16.11.1990 alleging demand of Rs.14,000/- as illegal gratification for issuance of licence/registration of his unit by Mr. B.K.Ahluwalia (since deceased), Inspector of Factories, Factory Licensing Department, MCD. He was directed to pay Rs.2,500/- on 17.11.1990 at the office of Rural Area Manufacturers Association (RAMA for short), Sameypur, Delhi. Investigation reveals that Mr. B.K.Ahluwalia entered into criminal conspiracy with P.C. Rastogi, his colleague, A-1 and A-2 for obtaining illegal gratification of Rs.2,500/- from Arun Kaushik on 17.11.1990 and pursuant to the criminal conspiracy, they accepted Rs.2,500/- produced by Arun Kaushik at RAMA office, Delhi on 17.11.1990. They were held in a trap in which S.K.Sharma and B.K.Bhttacharji were associated as independent witnesses. Investigation further reveals that on demand of Rs.2,500/- Sh. Arun_Kaushik handed over the bribe amount of Rs.2,500/- to B.K.Ahluwalia who after counting the money with both hands passed it over to A-2. He counted the currency notes, recorded the amount in the diary and passed the currency notes to A-1. They were arrested by CBI team after getting pre-appointed signal. Rs.2,500/- were recovered from A-1
3. Investigation further reveals that B.K.Ahluwalia and P.C.Rastogi also demanded and accepted Rs.500/- as part payment of bribe amount from PW-4 (Jagdish Lal), running business under the name and style of M/s Konark Auto Industries at the said office at about 01.00 P.M. on 17.11.1990. The tainted money was also recovered from A-1 in similar manner. After completion of investigation, B.K.Ahluwalia, P.C.Rastogi, A-1 and A-2 were sent up for trial for committing offences mentioned above. The prosecution examined 12 witnesses to prove the charges. In their 313 statements, the appellants pleaded false implication. On appreciating the evidence and considering the rival contentions of the parties, the Trial Court, by the impugned judgment acquitted P.C.Rastogi and convicted A-1 and A-2 for the offences mentioned previously. Being aggrieved, they have filed the appeals.
4. Learned Senior Counsel for the appellants urged that the Trial Court did not appreciate the evidence in its true and proper perspective and fell into grave error in relying upon the testimonies of interested witnesses. He vehemently argued that offence under Section 120B IPC could not be established as the main culprit/offender B.K.Ahluwalia expired during trial. The appellants had not demanded and accepted any bribe amount from the complainants with whom they were not acquainted. The hand wash bottles when produced in the court were found empty. Panch witness S.K.Sharma did not support the prosecution. The judgment is based on conjectures and surmises. The explanation offered by the appellants in their 313 statements was not given due weightage. They specifically stated that the bribe money was thrusted in their hands when B.K.Ahluwalia refused to accept it from the complainants. The appellants had gone to meet B.K.Ahluwalia who was known to them. Learned Special Public Prosecutor for CBI urged that the appellants entered into conspiracy with B.K.Ahluwalia