JUDGMENT

ANISH DAYAL, J.

CRL. M. BAIL 1684/2024

1. This application has been filed seeking suspension of sentence imposed upon the appellant during pendency of the appeal. The appeal was admitted by order dated 8th October 2024 and notice has been issued in the application.

2. The appeal was filed assailing the impugned judgment of conviction dated 26th September 2024 and impugned order on sentence dated 1st Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL. M. BAIL 1684/2024 in CRL. A. 940/2024 Page 1 of 10 October 2024, passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) (ACB-01) CBI, Rouse Avenue District Courts. The appellant was convicted for offences under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (“PC Act”) and sentenced to 3 years and 4 years respectively, for each of these offences. Both sentences were to run concurrently. Appellant has been incarcerated for about four months, as per the Nominal Roll.

Factual Background

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 8th July 2014, complainant/Vinay Tyagi of Kingsway Complex, Nirankari Colony, Delhi- 110009, filed a complaint at the Office of the Anti-Corruption Bureau (“ACB”), alleging that he had applied at the Office of SDM Civil Lines, for permission to repair four rooms of a school situated at the village of Jharoda, Majra Burari, Delhi. The Block Development Officer (“BDO”) of the area, Shri Madan Lal, had instructed him to contact the Panchayat Secretary (the appellant), who demanded Rs.10 lakhs for granting permission for repair. The complainant alleged, he showed his inability to fulfil the demand and was threatened by both, the BDO and the appellant. In order to prevent the demolition, he filed an application before the court for stay, but demolition of the under-repair rooms of his school started. He alleged, that appellant stated that, if complainant could not fulfil the demand of illegal gratification, the appellant would demolish the school completely. As per the complaint, he agreed for taking Rs.3 lakhs and demanded that Rs.1.5 lakhs be paid on 8th July 2014; on this basis, the complaint was lodged.

Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL. M. BAIL 1684/2024 in CRL. A. 940/2024 Page 2 of 10

4. On receipt of the complaint, a raiding team was constituted, a trap was laid in the parking area of Tis Hazari. As per the prosecution, the appellant was caught red-handed while demanding and accepting Rs.1.5 lakhs cash, from Rajat Tyagi, son of the complainant, in presence of witnesses; FIR No. 54/2014 was registered. During investigation, right- hand wash of the appellant was taken and the same was sent to FSL for expert opinion. The FSL report confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate. After completion of the investigation, the sanction under Section 19 of the PC Act was obtained from the competent authority; charge sheet was submitted. Trial ensued and the impugned orders were passed.

Submissions on behalf of Appellant

5. Senior Counsel for appellant, essentially argued on these aspects; firstly, that the demand and acceptance was not proven; secondly, there was non-identification of the appellant by the complainants; thirdly, there was no occasion to demand or give any bribe; and fourthly, the best evidence was not procured by the prosecution.

6. A sequence of dates was presented. On 24th June 2014, there was demolition at the school of the complainant, post-receiving complaints from villagers of village Jharoda, that the school was built on a Gram Sabha land and the complainant was conducting construction activities in the garb of repair. Demolition was accordingly, carried out under orders of ADM (Central) dated 13th June 2014. On 21st June 2014, a civil suit had already been filed by the complainant before ADJ, Tis Hazari Courts. After the said demolition on 24th June 2014, the complainant obtained a stay order of any further demolition on 27th June 2014. It was submitted Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed CRL. M. BAI