Criminal Appeal Nos. 728 of 2008 and 729 of 2008 Page 1 of 11

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

CRL.A. No. 728 of 2008

Reserved on: October 13, 2014

Decision on: October 17, 2014

MUNSHI RAM

..... Appellant

Through: Dr. Kanwal Sapra and Mr. H.R.

Dhamija, Advocates.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP.

AND

CRL.A. No. 729 of 2008

ROHTASH KANWAR

..... Appellant

Through: Dr. Kanwal Sapra and Mr. H.R.

Dhamija, Advocates.

versus

STATE

..... Respondent

Through: Ms. Isha Khanna, APP.

CORAM: JUSTICE S. MURALIDHAR

JUDGMENT

17.10.2014

1. These two appeals are directed against the impugned judgment dated

7^th August 2008 passed by the learned Special Judge in CC No. 129 of

2006, convicting the Appellants for the offences under Sections 7 and

2014:DHC:5439

Criminal Appeal Nos. 728 of 2008 and 729 of 2008 Page 2 of 11

13 (1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988 (PC Act) as well as the order on sentence dated 11^th August 2008,

whereby for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act each of them

were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment („RI‟) for a period of

one year along with fine of Rs.2,000/- each and in default to undergo

simple imprisonment („SI‟) for two months each and for the offence

under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the PC Act, each of

them were further sentenced to undergo RI for two years each with fine

of Rs. 3,000 each and in default to undergo SI for three months each.

Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Criminal Appeal No. 728 of 2008 is by Munshi Ram, Accused No. 1

(A-1) who was Sub Inspector (SI) in the Delhi Police („DP‟) and

Criminal Appeal No. 729 of 2008 is by Rohtash Kanwar, A-2 who was

a Constable in the DP.

3. It requires to be noted that this Court by its order dated 4^th September

2008 suspended the sentences of the Appellants during the pendency of

these appeals.

4. The case of the prosecution is that the Complainant, Kanta Prasad

Gautam (PW-8) was having a jewellery shop at P-2/201, Sultan Puri,

Delhi. On 3^rd October 2000 A-1 along with three police officials came

to his shop and took him to PS Sultan Puri. One Ashok present with

them stated that PW-8 had purchased stolen jewellery items from him.

A-1 asked PW-8 to return the jewellery or give money in its place

failing which A-1 would arrest PW-8. A-1 then demanded Rs. 1 lakh

2014:DHC:5439

Criminal Appeal Nos. 728 of 2008 and 729 of 2008 Page 3 of 11

from PW-8 and asked him to come on the following day with the

money.

5. On the following day, i.e., 4^th October 2000 PW-8 went to A-1 and

requested him not to demand any bribe amount. Thereupon A-1is stated

to have agreed to accept Rs. 50,000. A-1 sent one Roop Chand (PW-6)

to the house of PW-8. PW-6 went there and collected Rs. 20,000 from

Smt. Ram Shri (PW-2), the mother of PW-8. On 5^th October 2000 one

police official came to the house of PW-8 and called him to the PS. PW-

8 went to PS in the evening when again A-1 stated to have demanded

Rs. 30,000 from PW-8 and upon request of PW-8 A-1 agreed to accept

Rs. 5,000. At that stage, PW-8, who was against giving of any further

bribe, went to the Anti-Corruption Branch (ACB) at around 4 pm and

got his complaint (Ex.PW-3/A) recorded by the Raid Officer (RO),

Inspector Abhey Ram (PW-10) in the presence of panch witness Kamal

Singh (PW-3) who was on duty at the ACB and at that time was an

LDC in the office of the Commissioner of Industries, CPO building,

Kashmiri Gate Delhi. PW-8 produced eight government currency (GC)

notes of Rs.500 each and 10 GC notes of Rs. 100 each. PW-10 noted

their serial numbers in the pre-raid report (Ex. PW-3/B). Thereafter,

PW-10 applied phenolphthalein powder to the said