Back
2020 Supreme(Del) 282
IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
IN THE MATTER OF:
Sandeep Deshwal Alias Sanju - Appellant
Versus
State Govt. of NCT of Delhi - Respondent
CRL.A. 168 of 2013
Decided On : 04-05-2020
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Jaideep Malik, Advocate
For the Respondent: Dr. M.P. Singh, APP with ASI Mahinder Singh
The offense under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 can be committed by any person, not necessarily a public servant, and can be established based on testimonial evidence.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Conviction under Section 8 - 1988 - [BRIBERY] - [RATION CARD FRAUD] - [Section 8 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988] - The court discussed the provisions of Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and highlighted that the offense can be committed by any person, not necessarily a public servant. The court relied on the testimonies of the Panch witness and the Raid Officer to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. The court rejected the appellant's contention of being falsely implicated and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved a complaint about bribery in obtaining a ration card from the Food & Supply Department. The complainant failed to support the prosecution's case, and material witnesses did not fully corroborate the prosecution's version. The appellant was convicted under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 based on the testimonies of the Panch witness and the Raid Officer.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe amount for inducing officials to prepare and obtain the ration card, and upheld the conviction and sentence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Issues: The issues revolved around the failure of the complainant and material witnesses to fully support the prosecution's case, contradictions in testimonies, and the appellant's contention of being falsely implicated.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the testimonies of the Panch witness and the Raid Officer to establish the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount, and rejected the appellant's contention of being falsely implicated.
Final Decision: The court upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, dismissed the appeal, cancelled the appellant's bail bonds, and directed the appellant to surrender within two months from the passing of the judgment.
JUDGMENT :
MANOJ KUMAR OHRI, J.
1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.01.2013 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in CC No.22/2009 arising out of FIR No.04/2007 registered under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 at Police Station, Anti Corruption Branch (hereinafter referred to as ACB).
2. The Trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted the appellant under Section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and vide order on sentence dated 15.01.2013, sentenced him to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default whereof to further undergo SI for four months. The appellant was granted benefit of Section 428 Cr.P.C.
3. The facts, as noted by the Trial Court are as under:-
“In brief, the case of the prosecution is that Rajesh Chauhan lodged a complaint that he went to the office of Food & Supply Department, Vikaspuri, Delhi in February, 2007 to obtain a ration card but he failed to get proper information about the procedure to procure aration card but met one Sandeep Deshwal @Sanju who offered to help him to get a ration card as he knew some officials working in the Food & Supply Office. Sandeep Desiiwal @Sanju demanded gratification of Rs. 1,000/-for the same. The case of the prosecution further is that on 22.02.07 Rajesh Chauhan again met Sandeep Deshwal @Sanju when he went to collect his ration card and obtained the same from him on payment of Rs. 1,000/-who was caught red handed while demanding and accepting Rs.1,000/-as illegal gratification from Rajesh Chauhan.”
4. During trial, the prosecution examined a total of 17 witnesses. The complainant, Rajesh Chauhan was examined as PW-7. The Panch witness, Jagdish Prasad was examined as PW-10. The Raid Officer, Insp. Jai Prakash was examined as PW-16. During the raid, some ration cards were seized from the spot. In trial, all those persons whose ration cards were seized during the raid, were cited as prosecution witnesses. The aforesaid witnesses are Ram Niwas (PW-1), Zile Singh (PW-4), Amit Kumar (PW-5), Jagdish Babu (PW-8), Kailash Kumar (PW-9), Ram Avtar (PW-11), Tara Chand (PW-11) and Israfil (PW-15).
MATERIAL WITNESSES
5. The complainant, during his testimony, failed to support the prosecution case to the extent that he gave any bribe money to the appellant for obtaining the ration card. He stated that on 22.02.2007, he went to the Office of Food & Civil Supply Department at about 10:30 a.m. where he saw one person carrying few ration cards and going towards the photocopying shop. He went to the photocopying shop and gave Rs.10/-to the person for making copy of his ration card. At this stage, the Investigating Officer caught hold of the person making photocopies while the person who had brought the ration cards, managed to escape. The complainant denied having any talks with the appellant and also any demand of bribe by him. He was declared hostile. In cross-examination by the learned prosecutor, he admitted giving the complaint (Ex.PW7/A) and also his signature on it. He also admitted being given two notes of Rs.500/-by the officials of the ACB to be used as the bribe amount. He admitted his signatures on the seizure memos relating to hand wash, blank application forms for the ration cards and the ration cards including his own. He also identified the two GC notes as Ex. P3 and P4. He denied his signatures on the personal search memo of the appellant. In his cross-examination conducted by the defence counsel, he stated that the complaint was given by him after the accused was apprehended.
6. Jagdish Prasad, the Panch witness proved the pre-raid, spot proceedings as well as the post-raid proceedings. He stated that on 22.02.2007, he accompanied the complainant to the Office of Food & Civil Supply. On asking of the complainant, the appellant took out the ration card from the drawer of his table and handed it over to the complainant. On the appellant demanding Rs.1,000/-, the complainant handed over the treated GC notes t
