CRL.A. No. 89 of 2009

Page 1 of 32

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

Reserved on: March 3, 2014

Decision on: March 25, 2014

CRL.A. 89 of 2009

RAJESH GUPTA

..... Appellant

Through: Mr. Arvind K. Nigam, Senior

Advocate with Mr. Subhiksh Vasudev,

Mr. Abhishek Singh, Mr. Atul T.N., Advocates.

versus

STATE THROUGH

CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION

..... Respondent

Through: Mr. Narender Mann, Special Public

Prosecutor with Mr. Manoj Pant and

Ms. Utkarsha Kohli, Advocates.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT

25.03.2014

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 24^th January 2009

passed by the Special Judge, Central District-02, Delhi in CC No. 195/01

convicting the Appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13 (2)

read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

(„PC Act‟) and the order on sentence dated 27^th January 2009 whereby

for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, the Appellant was

sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment („RI‟) with a fine of Rs.

15,000 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisonment

(„SI‟) for 30 days and for the offence under Section 13 (2) read with

2014:DHC:1641

CRL.A. No. 89 of 2009

Page 2 of 32

Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, to RI for 2½ years and fine of Rs.15,000

and in default to undergo SI for 30 days. Both sentences were directed to

run concurrently. By an order dated 4^th February 2009 while admitting

the appeal, the sentence awarded to the Appellant was suspended.

The case of the prosecution

2. The case of the prosecution is that Mrs. Madhu Bala, the Complainant

(PW-3) was running a business of packing, shipping and a travel agency

under the name and style of M/s. Duro Pack at C-4/67, SDA, New Delhi

and was filing her income tax returns („ITRs‟) regularly. The ITR filed by

her for the assessment year 1997-98 was under scrutiny with the

Appellant who was the Assistant Commissioner of Income Tax („ACIT‟),

Circle 20 (1). The office of the Appellant was at Room No. 163, C.R.

Building, ITO Delhi. On 7^th March 2000, PW-3 met the Appellant for

ascertaining whether any further information was required for the ITR

filed by her. According to PW-3, the Appellant demanded a bribe of

Rs.75,000 from her to clear her case. On her repeated request, the bribe

amount was reduced to Rs.50,000 and the Appellant informed her that he

would let her know finally in a day or two. PW-3 is then supposed to

have sought some time to make payment as it was a large sum. However,

PW-3 did not want to pay any bribe and thus lodged a complaint with the

Central Bureau of Investigation („CBI‟), Anti Corruption Branch („ACB‟)

on 9^th March 2000.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that at around 10.30 am, PW-3

gave an oral complaint to the Superintendent of Police („SP‟), CBI, ACB

2014:DHC:1641

CRL.A. No. 89 of 2009

Page 3 of 32

about the alleged demand of a bribe by the Appellant. The SP directed

Inspector Azad Singh (PW-12) to verify the genuineness of the

complaint. After arranging an audio cassette and ensuring that it was

blank PW-12 in the presence of two independent witnesses i.e. Mr. V.S.

Chauhan, Eviction Inspector (PW-5) and Mr. Virendra Prasad,

Superintendent (PW-4) both from the Directorate of Estates, New Delhi

recorded a conversation made by PW-3 to the Appellant on telephone

No. 3316392 (of the ITO) from telephone No. 4362460. According to

the prosecution, the conversation revealed that PW-3 had repeatedly

requested the Appellant to reduce the bribe amount and the Appellant had

asked her to come at around 4 pm to pay whatever amount she had

collected by that time. The original cassette was sealed. A memo

(Ex.PW-3/A) of the telephone conversation was prepared. The

conversation is stated to have commenced at 11:30 am and concluded at

11:45