Delhi District Court
State vs . Parmod Kumar on 8 September, 2010
1
IN THE COURT OF SHRI V K MAHESHWARI SPECIAL
JUDGE: CBI
Case No. 34/2010
FIR No. 30/07
State Vs. Parmod Kumar
State Vs. Constable Parmod Kumar
S/O Om Parkash
Village -Sisauli, P S Bhaura Kalan,
Distt. Muzaffer Nagar, UP
Date of Institution 7.4.2008.
FIR No. 30/2007 ACB, Delhi
Under Section U/S 7/13 of P C Act , 1988
Arguments concluded 27.8.2010
on
Date of order 7.9.2010.
JUDGMENT :
Facts of the case:-
In brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Rakesh Kumar was the owner of Blue Line Bus bearing registration No.DL IPA 6988 which he was plying from Nand Nagri to Jahangirpuri. Traffic Police officials used to demand bribe from him CC No.34/2010 1/45 2 on the pretext of entry fees near Azad Pur Traffic Light. On 12.6.2007 traffic constable Parmod Kumar posted at Azad Pur Traffic Light asked Rakesh Kumar to come with Rs.300/- at Azad Pur Bus stand and threatened that if he will not pay entry fees then his bus will be challaned. Parmod Kumar did not want to give bribe . He went to Anti Corruption Branch and gave his written complaint. Complainant had produced Rs. 300/- i.e. 3 GC notes of denomination 100/- each before raid officer (herein after called R.O) who had recorded the serial numbers of G C notes in pre raid report after getting the same checked from Panch witness. RO applied phenolphthalein powder on the G C notes and gave a demonstration to the panch witness and complainant by touching the right hand of panch witness with the treated GC notes and had taken wash of the right hand of panch witness in the solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. The treated G C notes were given to complainant who kept the same in left pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, hands of panch witness were got washed with the soap and that solution was thrown away. RO instructed panch witness to remain close with the complainant and to over hear the conversation and after being satisfied that bribe had actually been given, panch witness should give a signal by hurling his hand over his head. Complainant was instructed to remain close to panch witness and to do the transaction in such a manner that he could CC No.34/2010 2/45 3 be able to see the transaction and hear the conversation and he would give the bribe money on specific demand.
2 At about 11.55 am RO alongwith complainant, panch witness, Inspector Chandra Mani alongwith 3 or 4other members of raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch for Azad Pur red light near Bus stand in a govt. vehicle and reached there at about 12.20 pm. Government vehicle was left near a fruit rehry and Inspector Chander Mani remained in that vehicle. Complainant and panch witness were reminded about the instructions given to them in the pre-raid proceedings and they were sent towards bus stand on the side of MCD colony where they met with one traffic police constable, who was in uniform, R.O alongwith members of raiding party followed them and had taken the suitable positions.
3 RO received pre-determined signal from panch witness, he alongwith raiding team rushed near bus stand and apprehended the accused. RO asked the panch witness what had happened who had told him that accused had taken bribe money of Rs.300/- from the complainant on the pretext of entry fee with his right hand and retained the same in the right hand fist. RO introduced him as Inspector from Anti Corruption Branch and challenged the accused that he had taken the bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant. RO offered his search to accused before taking his search, but accused CC No.34/2010 3/45 4 refused to take the same. Accused became perplexed. on the instruction of RO panch witness recovered the bribe money of Rs.300/- from the right fist of accused. On the direction of R.O. panch witness compared the Sl no. of recovered GC notes with the Sl no. mentioned in pre-raid report which were tallied. Recovered GC notes were taken in possession vide seizure memo, right hand wash of the accused was taken in the colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. That solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of PCJ, marked paper slips RHW-1 & II, were pasted on those bottles after obtaining signatures of Panch witness and complainant thereon. He prepared sample seal on two papers. Those bottles marked RHW-1 & II, sealed with the seal of PCJ and taken in possession vide seizure memo. Thereafter he had drawn post raid proceedings, he prepared rukka, and sent constable Krishan Kumar to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case alongwith rukka. Inspector Chander Mani was called at the spot , he handed over to him the custody of accused, case property, recovered GC notes of Rs.300/-, exhibits of this case, seizure memos and copy of raid report for investigation. 4 Copies required U/S 207 Cr P C supplied to accused. After hearing both the parties vide order dt. 7.8.2008 charge had been framed against the accused for the offence punishable U/s 7 & U/s CC No.34/2010 4/45 5 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) ( d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Accused pleaded not guilty to the charge and claimed trial, hence, this trial.
PROSECUTION EVEIDENCE.
5 Prosecution, in order to prove its case, has produced following witnesses:
6 PW1 HC Surender Kumar has proved photocopy of relevant entry at point B in register No.19 as Ex.PW 1/A. 7 PW2 ACP Hoshiar Singh has proved service Bio Data of accused Parmod Kumar Ex.PW 2/A, letter Ex.PW 2/B and corrigendum Ex.PW 2/C. 8 PW3 Constable Mohan A M has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
9 PW4 ASI Varhese has proved copy of duty roster dt. 12.6.07 Ex.PW 4/A and seizure memo Ex.PW 4/B. 10 PW5 Sh. S Chaudhary DCP Traffic has proved sanction order Ex.PW 5/A. 11 PW6 Rakesh Kumar is the complainant. He has proved his complaint Ex.PW 6/A, pre-raid proceedings Ex.PW 6/B, statement Ex.PW 6/C and seizure memo Ex.PW 6/D & Ex.PW 6/E, post raid proceedings Ex.PW 6/F, arrest memo Ex.PW 6/G and personal search CC No.34/2010 5/45 6 memo Ex.PW 6/H. He correctly identified three GC notes of R.100 Ex P1 to P3, two sealed bottles RHW-1 and RHW-II Ex P4 and P5. 12 PW7 Sh. Parmod Kala is the shadow witness has proved the documents already proved by PW6.
13 PW8 Sh. Bijender has not supported the case of prosecution and was declared hostile by Ld. APP. 14 PW9 SI K L Meena has proved the copy of FIR Ex PW9/A. 15 PW10 Constable Krishan Kumar has deposed orally. He has not proved any document.
16 PW11 ACP Jai Parkash is the IO of this case. He has proved FSL report Ex.PW 11/A, request Ex.PW 11/B, copy of RC of bus Ex.PW 11/C, copy of permit Ex.PW 11/D and seizure memo Ex.PW 11/E. 17 PW12 Inspector P C Jha is the Raid Officer. He has proved Rukka Ex.PW 12/A and other documents already proved by PW6.
18 PW13 Sh. Chandermani Assistant Commandant has proved the documents already proved by other witnesses. DEFENCE OF ACCUSED AND DEFENCE EVIDENCE 19 Statement of the accused U/s 313 Cr PC was recorded CC No.34/2010 6/45 7 wherein he has denied all the allegations made against him. He has further stated that he was lifted from traffic point model town III, Delhi and was brought to Anti Corruption Branch and falsely implicated in this case. He neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount.
20 In his defence accused has examined DW1 Sh. Ravinder Kumar.
PROSECUTION ARGUMENT 21 Ld Addl PP Sh Alok Saxena for ACB, Delhi argued that prosecution has proved its case that accused Parmod Kumar was working as constable in Delhi Traffic Police, he had demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs.300/- from complainant Rakesh Kumar on the pretext of entry fees and for not getting his blue line bus challaned. It is argued that prosecution has proved that tainted bribe money of Rs.300/- was recovered from the conscious possession of accused by the panch witness Sh Parmod Kala. panch witness Parmod Kala has fully corroborated the case of prosecution. Raid officer Inspector P C Jha has also corroborated the version given by panch witness. Prosecution has also produced other relevant witnesses to prove its case . It is argued that complainant Rakesh Kumar and his driver Bijender has been won over by the accused that is why they have not supported the case of prosecution, however, the case of CC No.34/2010 7/45 8 prosecution has been fully corroborated by the panch witness who has also been supported by the raid officer . It is argued that accused may be convicted.
DEFENCE ARGUMENTS 22 It is argued by Ld. Defence counsel that evidence produced by prosecution is full of contradictions and self conflicting, hence the same cannot be relied upon. Ld. Defence Counsel has argued that PW9 Sh. K L Meena SI, P S Anti Corruption Branch deposed in his examination on 27.1.2010 that he was on duty as a duty officer on 12.6.2007 in P S Anti Corruption Branch. On that day after receiving of Rukka through constable Krishan Kumar sent by Inspector P C Jha he registered the FIR in question, copy of which is Ex.PW 9/A. Said constable came at P S Anti Corruption Branch at 3.45PM and remained with him upto 6 PM. Thereafter he handed over the copy of FIR and original Rukka to constable Krishan Kumar. It shows that FIR in question was received by IO after 6 PM. 23 PW10 constable Krishan Kumar also deposed in his examination on 27.1.2010 that he was the member of raiding party in this case led by Inspector P C Jha raiding party had gone to Bus stand Azad Pur; after conducting the raid, raid officer prepared Rukka for registration of case and thereafter he got the case registered and returned to the spot and handed over copy of FIR and original Rukka CC No.34/2010 8/45 9 to Inspector Chander Mani. He has further deposed that he had left the spot with rukka at 3 PM and left Anti Corruption Branch with copy of FIR and original Rukka at 6 PM. It also shows that copy of FIR and original Rukka was received by IO after 6 PM.
24 IO of the present case i.e. PW13 Inspector Chander Mani has deposed in his examination that he had arrested the accused in the present case after receipt of FIR whereas in the arrest memo prosecution itself showed that accused was arrested in the present case at 5 PM, which itself shows that accused was arrested in the present case prior to getting the registration of FIR in question, hence the story of prosecution is doubtful.
25 Complainant Sh. Rakesh Kumar deposed in his examination that accused had not demanded and accepted any bribe from him as a entry fees with regard to his bus in question. He has also deposed that his driver Sh. Bijender had not told him with regard to demand of entry fees, complaint dt. 12.6.2007 was written by him after conducting the raid in question on the dictation of Sh P C Jha, raid officer. It shows that police officials of Anti Corruption Branch falsely implicated the accused in the present case, reason best known to them. PW6 and PW8 i.e. complainant and his driver are completely hostile and they did not support the prosecution story which shows that prosecution story is false and frivolous therefore cannot be relied upon.
CC No.34/2010 9/45 10Thus prosecution has failed to prove that any illegal demand of entry fees was made by accused and accepted the same by him at any point of time.
26 Accused is innocent. Accused had not demanded and accepted bribe from complainant. Accused had never demanded any entry fees from the driver Bijender of complainant , hence accused is liable to be acquitted.
27 PW7 Sh. Pramod Kala has deposed in his examination that he went to Anti Corruption Branch at 10 A M being on duty as panch witness in Anti Corruption Branch. At about 10.45 AM complainant Rakesh Kumar came in Anti Corruption Branch, he had written his complaint Ex.PW 6/A at 11 AM in his presence. He came to Anti Corruption Branch after conducting raid alongwith entire raiding party including complainant and personal search memo of accused was prepared at Anti Corruption Branch. It is argued that statement of panch witness, IO and Raid Officer are contradictory. PW7 has given false statement contrary to the statement of other witnesses of prosecution. Statement of Panch witness is not true/correct hence cannot be relied upon.
28 PW12 Inspector P C Jha (Raid Officer) has deposed in his examination that on 12.6.2007 he was posted as Inspector in Anti Corruption Branch. On that day complainant Rakesh Kumar came to CC No.34/2010 10/45 11 him at 11.10 AM and wrote his complaint Ex.PW 6/A. Panch witness, PW7 has deposed in his examination that complainant came to Anti Corruption Branch at 10.45 AM whereas raid officer stated that complainant came to him at 11.10 AM and thereafter he he had written complaint against the accused with regard to demand of entry fees for a sum of Rs.300/- .
29 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that DW1 Ravinder Kumar has stated that on 12.06.2007, he was present at T-point Model Town - III as he used to supply milk in that area. On that day he saw that some person in plain clothes came in Gypsy and lifted a traffic police person and had taken him in the Gypsy. He had challenged those persons but they asked him to keep quiet. After about 15 days he met the accused and inquired from him about the incident, who told him that those persons were police officials, who had taken him away and implicated in a false case. It is argued that DW1 was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP for State and a suggestion was given to him that he is deposing in such a way to save the accused as he was running his business illegally on the mercy of accused. It is argued that it proves that accused was lifted from T-point, Model Town - III on 12.06.2007 by the police officials of ACB, Delhi. 30 Prosecution failed to prove its case against accused beyond reasonable doubts. It is argued that accused is innocent and he CC No.34/2010 11/45 12 has been falsely implicated in this case hence he may be acquitted. 31 Ld. Defence counsel in support of his arguments placed reliance on following authorities:
Diwesh Narayan Raizada V. The State of Bihar, 2007 Crl.L J 453, Ayyasamy and another, appellants Vs. State through Inspector of Police Vigilance and Anti Corruption, Erode, Respondents, 1996 Crl.L J 119, Suderhan Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Crl.L J 2013, Ramdas s/o Zaparji Shahane V. State of Maharashtra, 1996 Crl.L J 1848, Gurcharan Singh V. State of Haryana 1994 Crl.L J1710, State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. P Venugopal & etc. 2001 Crl.L J 4891, State of HP Vs. Sukhdev Singh Rana, 2005 Crl.L J 1136, Som Parkash Vs. State of Punjab, AIR 1992 Supreme Court 665, Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 1976 Crl.L J 172, Ram Kishan Juneja Vs. The State of Haryana, Recent Criminal Report 1993 (1) 313,
32 I have carefully considered all the arguments raised in this Court on behalf of both the parties and have gone through the record. PUBLIC SERVANT AND SANCTION 33 U/s 7 of P C Act, 1988 prosecution has to prove that :
(i) The accused was a public servant or expected to be a public servant at the time when the offence was committed.
(ii) The accused accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or CC No.34/2010 12/45 13 attempted to obtain illegal gratification from some person.
(iii) For himself or for any other person.
(iv) Such gratification was not a remuneration to which the accused was legally entitled.
(v) The accused accepted such gratification as a motive or reward for,
(a) doing or forbearing to do an official act, or
(b) doing or forbearing to show favour or disfavour to someone in the exercise of his official functions, or ( c) rendering or attempting to render any service or disservice to some one with the Central or any State Government or Parliament or the Legislature of any State, of with any local authority, Corporation or Government company referred to in Sec. 2 clause © or with any public servant, whether named or otherwise.
34 It is an undisputed fact that accused is serving in Delhi Traffic Police, thus there is no dispute that he is a public servant.
35 PW5 Sh. S Chaudhary, DCP Traffic, New Delhi range stated that on 01.04.2008, he was posted as DCP, Traffic Delhi when he had received a request along with the material collected during the investigation for according sanction for the prosecution of Traffic CC No.34/2010 13/45 14 Constable Pramod Kumar. He has also stated that he was competent to remove Ct. Pramod Kumar from his service. He has further deposed that after considering all the relevant documents i.e copy of FIR, copy of statement of witnesses recorded U/s 161 Cr.P.C., copy of seizure memo of GC notes, exhibits, copy of chemical examination report and site plan, he was satisfied that Ct. Pramod Kumar had primafacie committed offence U/s 7/13 of PC Act, 1988, hence, he had accorded sanction for his prosecution Ex. PW5/A. This witness has not been cross examined on behalf of accused despite of opportunity given to him. There is no other reason on the file to disbelieve his statement. In these circumstance, this Court is of opinion that prosecution has proved a valid sanction on the record for the prosecution of accused. Demand, acceptance and Recovery of bribe money .
36 With regard to demand, acceptance and recovery of bribe money case of prosecution has been supported by Panch witness PW7 Parmod Kala, andRaid Officer PW12 Sh. P C Jha .
37 Relevant portion of the statement of PW7 Parmod Kala JE Irrigation, Flood Control Department in this regard, is as under:
" I alongwith the complainant went to the accused Parmod Kumar (present in the court correctly identified) who was CC No.34/2010 14/45 15 already standing here. Thereafter accused inquired from the complainant whether he had brought entry fees and thereafter complainant took out those treated GC notes from his pocket which the accused accepted with his right hand. Thereafter I gave pre-determined signal by hurling my hand over my head. The members of raiding party immediately came at the spot and raid officer inquired from me about the incident and I told him that accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant in the name of entry fees with his right hand and kept the same in his right hand. The Raid Officer disclosed his identity and challenged the accused. Accused became perplexed. The raid Officer offered his search before taking the search of the accused but accused refused to do so. On the instructions of Raid Officer, I recovered those treated GC notes from the right hand fist of the accused. The Serial no. of those recovered GC notes were tallied with Serial.no. mentioned in pre-raid report which tallied. Those treated GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 6/D which bears my signature at point B. The right hand of the accused was dipped in some water type solution which turned into pink. That solution was transferred into two bottles which were sealed with the seal of PCJ and marked paper slips were pasted on those bottles which were signed by CC No.34/2010 15/45 16 me and the Raid Officer as well as the complainant."
38 Raid Officer Inspector P C Jha has fully corroborated the above statement of Panch Witness. Relevant portion of his statement is as under:
"At about 12.35 PM, I received pre-determined signal from panch witness and I alongwith raiding team rushed near bus stand and he apprehended the accused. I asked the panch witness what had happened and he told me that accused present in the court today (correctly identified) had taken bribe money of Rs.300/- from the complainant on the pretext of entry fee with his right hand and had retained the same in the right hand fist. I introduced him as Inspector from Anti Corruption Branch and challenged the accused that he had taken the bribe of Rs.300/- from the complainant and I offered that if wanted to take his search before taking his search, he can do but accused refused to do. Accused became perplexed. I instructed the panch witness to recover the bribe money and panch witness recovered the bribe money of Rs.300/- from the right fist of accused. On my direction the panch witness compared the Sl no. of those recovered GC notes with the Sl no. mentioned in pre-raid report Ex.PW 6/B and they tallied. Those recovered GC CC No.34/2010 16/45 17 notes were taken in possession vide seizure memo. The right hand wash of the accused was taken in the colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate which turned pink. That solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of PCJ, marked paper slips RHW-1 & II, were pasted on those bottles after obtaining signatures of Panch witness and complainant thereon. He prepared sample seal on two papers. Those bottles marked RHW-1 & II, sealed with the seal of PCJ were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW 6/E which bears my signature at point C."
39 It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that complainant Rakesh Kumar has not supported the case of prosecution at all. It is correct that complainant Rakesh Kumar has been declared hostile on the request of Ld. Prosecutor. But if his evidence is to be considered coupled with the circumstances of this case, he has also proved the acceptance and recovery of bribe money from accused even in his examination in chief. Relevant portion of his examination in chief is as under:
"Around 12 noon, I alongwith panch witness, Inspector Jha and two/three other police officials in the Govt. vehicle left Anti Corruption Branch and we reached at about 12.15 pm near Azar Pur Chowk. The govt. vehicle was parked some distance away from CC No.34/2010 17/45 18 the Chowk. Myself and the panch witness got down from the vehicle and proceeded towards bus stand, Azad Pur Chowk. The other members of the raiding party also got down from the vehicle and took their suitable position nearby. There I met two traffic officials and two private persons who used to collect the money on behalf of traffic police officials. I told those traffic police officials that I have come to pay the entry fee and thereafter those traffic police officials asked me to pay the entry fee and then I took out the three GC notes from my pocket and kept the same in my right hand and while I was holding the money in my right hand, someone took the money from my right hand and I cannot say whether the money was taken by the police official or by some private person who was with the police officials. Accused present in the court is one of the traffic police official who was present there. After the money was taken from my hand, the panch witness gave the signal and thereafter the raiding team came at the spot. As soon as the officials of Anti Corruption Branch came to apprehend the traffic police officials, all of them ran away except probably the accused present in the court and at that time, I saw that the GC notes were lying on the ground. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and was immediately brought to Anti Corruption Branch."CC No.34/2010 18/45 19
40 From the above quoted portion of statement of complainant it is clear that he has admitted that two traffic police officials met him on the spot who used to collect money on behalf of traffic police officials. He also admitted that he told them that he came to pay the entry fees. Thereafter, those police officials asked him to pay the entry fees. He has further stated that when he was holding money in his right hand someone took the money from his right hand. He has stated that he cannot say whether the money was taken by police officials or by some private person who was with the police official. He has specifically admitted that accused present in court was one of the traffic police official who was present there, thus complainant admitted/proved the presence of accused on the spot. Complainant has further stated that after the money was taken from his hand panch witness had given the signal and raiding team reached on the spot and apprehended accused present in the court while all other ran away from there.
41 Now it well settled proposition of law that evidence of a hostile witness cannot be rejected merely on the ground that he has been declare hostile . The portion of evidence of hostile witness which is found correct and reliable can be relied upon . In this regard, Hon'ble Supreme Court in Keshoram Bora Vs The State of Assam CC No.34/2010 19/45 20 cited in AIR 1978 SUPREME COURT 1096 has held as follows:
" It is now well settled that the principle falsus in una falsus in omnibus does not apply to criminal trials and it is the duty of the Court to disengage the truth from falsehood, to sift the grain from the chaff instead of taking an easy course of rejecting the prosecution case in its entirety merely on the basis of a few infirmities.
42 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi Vs State of Bihar (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 81 in this regard has held has follows:
" Even if a major portion of evidence is found to be deficient, in case residue is sufficient to prove guilt of an accused, notwithstanding acquittal of a number of other co-accsed persons, his conviction can be maintained. It is the duty of the court to separate the grain from the chaff. Whre the chaff can be separted from the grain, it would be open to the court to convict an accrued notwithstanding the fact that evidence has been found to deficient to prove the guilt of other accused person.
43 From the portion of statement of Panch Witness PW7 CC No.34/2010 20/45 21 Parmod Kala and PW12 P C Jha, Raid Officer quoted above, it is proved on the file that tainted money of Rs.300/- was recovered from the possession of accused constable Parmod Kumar. Thus, even from the statement of complainant coupled with the circumstantial evidence it is proved that it was the accused constable Parmod Kumar, who was present on the spot and had demanded and accepted the bribe money which was also recovered from his possession.
44 Panch Witness PW 7 Parmod Kala and PW12 P C Jha both have specifically stated that when the accused was challenged that he had accepted the bribe money from the complainant, accused became perplexed. There is no cross examination on this point on both these witnesses on behalf of accused.
45 In the prosecution for offence of bribery the conduct of accused is relevant U/S 8 of Evidence Act. When the accused was challenged by Raid Officer regarding acceptance of bribe amount he became perplexed and had not given any explanation. 46 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Parkash Chand Vs Delhi Admn AIR 1979 SC 400 in para No.8 has observed as follows:
" It was contended by the ld. Counsel for the appellant that the evidence relating to the conduct of the accused when challenged by the Inspector was inadmissible as it was hit by section 162 Criminal CC No.34/2010 21/45 22 Procedure Code. He relied on a decision of the Andhra Pradesh High Court in D.V. Narisimhan V.State,(AIR 1969 andh Pra 271). We do not agree with the submissions of Sh. Anthony. There is a clear distinction between the conduct of a person against whom an offence is alleged which is admissible under section 8 of the Evidence Act, if such conduct is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact and the statement made to a police officer in the course of an investigation which is hit by sec. 162 Criminal Procedure code. What is excluded by sec. 162 Criminal Procedure Code is the statement made to a police officer in the course of investigation and not the evidence relating to the conduct of an accused person ( not amounting to a statement) when confronted or questioned by a police officer during the course of an investigation. For example, the evidence of the circumstances, simplicitor,that an accused person led a police officer and pointed out the place where stolen articles or weapons which might have been used in the commission of the offence where found hidden, would be admissible as conduct, u/s 8 of the evidence Act, irrespective of whether any statement by the accused contemporaneously with or antecedent to such conduct falls within the purview of Section 27 of the Evidence Act(vide Himachal Pradesh Administration Vs. Om Prakash AIR 1972 SC 975 CC No.34/2010 22/45 23
47 In view of above discussion conduct of accused at the time of his apprehension by Raid Officer also proves that he has accepted the bribe amount from the complainant.
48 A simple suggestion has been given to raid officer that he had falsely implicated accused in this case by picking him up from Model town III. No sufficient and good reason has been alleged as to why the Raid Officer had falsely implicated the accused. Raid Officer is also an employee of Delhi Police, like the accused. Raid Officer is also a public servant like the accused, why he will falsely implicate the accused in this case, no motive has been imputed to Raid Officer for falsely implicating the accused in this case.
49 Testimony of Raid Officer cannot be rejected merely because he happened to be a police officer. It is observed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Tahir Vs State ( 1996) 3 SCC 399, no infirmity attaches to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to the police force. It was observed in Aner Raja Khim Vs The State of Saurashtra AIR 1956 SC 217 that the presumption that a person acts honestly and legally applies as much in favour of police offices as of others. It is not proper and permissible to doubt the evidence of police officers. Judicial approach must not be to distrust and suspect their evidence on oath without good and sufficient ground CC No.34/2010 23/45 24 thereof. In these circumstances, there is no reason to disbelieve the statement of Raid Officer.
50 When it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money by the accused, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence the demand or motive, in view of Section 20 of PC Act, 1988. It has been held so by our Hon'ble Supreme Court in B. Noha Vs. state of Kerala, 2006 IV AD 465.
51 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. R Jeevaratnam, 2004 (2) JCC 1161 has held as follows in this regard:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sec. 20 (1) -Presumption under - Respondent caught red-handed with the marked money in a briefcase carried by him - Presumption that he accepted illegal gratification arose".
52 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Josi Vs. State of Maharashtra (2000 (8) SCC 571) has held as follows in this regard:
"The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the CC No.34/2010 24/45 25 presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted 'as motive or reward' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word 'gratification' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the court has to draw on the factual premises that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like 'gratification or any valuable thing'. If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word 'gratification' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it".
53 This decision was followed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of A.P. (2001 (1) SCCC 691). wherein it has been held that " There is no case of the accused that the said amount was received by him as the amount which he was legally entitled to receive or collect from PW-1. It was held in the decision in State of A P Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000 (9) SCC
752), that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by CC No.34/2010 25/45 26 way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused."
54 Panch witness Parmod Kala is Government servant who was working as Junior Engineer, Irrigation Flood, Control Department, Office of Executive Engineer, C D, IX Sector 15, Rohini. He has recovered the bribe money from the possession of accused. He has fully supported the case of prosecution and nothing such has come out in his lengthy cross examination conduced by Ld Defence counsel to disbelieve his statement. He was directed by his senior officers to join the investigation of ACB in this case. hence he cannot be termed as witness of the choice of ACB. He has not joined investigation of ACB in any other case except the present one. He was neither knowing the complainant nor the accused prior to this case. He has no affinity with the complainant and no enmity with the accused. In these circumstances, no motive can be imputed to him to depose falsely against accused. Even otherwise, nothing such has come in his cross examination to disbelieve his evidence. There is no reason to believe that ACB would falsely implicate the accused at the instance of complainant Rakesh Kumar who has even turned hostile against the prosecution in the court. Panch Wintess Parmod Kala and Raid Officer Sh. P C Jha are public servants unknown to accused and CC No.34/2010 26/45 27 complainant, there is no reason why they will depose falsely against accused. There is no reason why the Raid Officer and other trap team members who were also public servants will falsely implicate the accused. No enmity/ ill will has been alleged against the Raid Officer and Panch witness even by accused, therefore they were having no motive to falsely implicate the accused in this case. In these circumstances the argument that accused was falsely implicated in this case does not appeal even to common sense.
FACTUAL AND LEGAL ANALYSIS OF DEFENCE ARGUMENTS 56 According to Ld. Defence Counsel accused was lifted
from T-point, Model Town - III on 12.06.2007 by the police officials of ACB Delhi. He has also referred the statement of DW1 in support of his argument. A suggestion has also been given to this effect to PW7 Parmod Kala and PW12 P C Jha, and PW13 Chander Mani, ACP. All these witnesses have specifically denied this suggestion. 57 Even complainant Rakesh Kumar who has not supported the case of prosecution and has supported the version of accused, has also stated that accused was apprehended from near Azad Pur Chowk. Relevant portion of his examination in chief, in this regard, is as under:
CC No.34/2010 27/45 28"Around 12 noon, I alongwith panch witness, Inspector Jha and two/three other police officials in the Govt. vehicle left Anti Corruption Branch and we reached at about 12.15 pm near Azar Pur Chowk."
"Accused present in the court is one of the traffic police official who was present there. After the money was taken from my hand, the panch witness gave the signal and thereafter the raiding team came at the spot. As soon as the officials of Anti Corruption Branch came to apprehend the traffic police officials, all of them ran away except probably the accused present in the court and at that time, I saw that the GC notes were lying on the ground. Thereafter, the accused was apprehended and was immediately brought to Anti Corruption Branch."
58 I have also carefully gone through the statement of DW1, in this regard, who has stated that few persons had lifted a police person and took him in a gypsy. He met accused after 15 days and enquired from him about the incident who informed him that those persons were police officials. Statement of this witness does not inspire confidence. He appears to be planted witness. This witness has not even disclosed the name of accused . Accused had not told him CC No.34/2010 28/45 29 that he was falsely implicated in this case. This witness has not lodged any complaint with regard to alleged lifting of police constable from Model Town III. Even otherwise Model Town III is a very busy and crowded place. Had there been any such incident there would have been much hue and cry at that place . In view of above discussion this court is of opinion that there is no merit in this plea of accused.
59 It is also argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that as per duty roaster Ex PW 4/A, duty of accused was at Model Town III and not at Azad Pur Chowk. It is correct that according to Ex PW 4/A duty of accused was at Model Town III. However, as discussed above, there is substantive evidence on the record that accused was trapped near Azad Pur Chowk. It cannot be inferred from this fact that at the time of trap he cannot be present near Azad Pur Chowk. It is the choice of accused where he had asked the complainant to meet him for giving the bribe money.
60 Ld. Defence counsel argued that entire investigation in this case is illegal because accused was arrested in this case at 5 PM while FIR was registered at 6 PM or thereafter. It is argued by Ld. Defence Counsel that according to Arrest Memo Ex PW 6/G accused CC No.34/2010 29/45 30 was arrested in this case at 5 PM on 12.6.2007 while from the evidence of prosecution, on the judicial file, it is proved that FIR was registered and copy of the same was received on the spot after 6 PM. In this regard Ld. Defence Counsel has referred to the statements of PW9 SI K L Meena, PW10 constable Kishan Kumar, PW13 Chander Mani IO of this case.
61 I have seen FIR Ex PW 9/A on which time of registration is mentioned as 3.45 PM. Witnesses PW10 and PW13 have given the time according to their memory. Incident is of 12.6.2007 while the statement of PW 9 SI K L Meena and PW10 were recorded on 27.1.2010 and statement of PW13 was recorded on 8.3.2010. Memory of a person fades away by the passage of time. In such circumstances Court cannot expect a parrot like repetition of the version from the witnesses after such a long time.
62 Even for the sake of argument it is assumed that copy of FIR was received on the spot after 6 PM and accused was arrested at 5 PM still it is of no help to the accused because it is proved beyond all reasonable doubts that FIR was registered in this case at 3.45 PM. 63 Even otherwise Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is evidence available on the record against the accused. In this regard our Hon'ble Supreme Court in a CC No.34/2010 30/45 31 latest judgment titled Zindar Ali Vs. State of West Bengal & Anr., 2009 III AD (S C ) 7 held as follows:
"Indian Penal Code, 1860 -Secs. 376 and 417 - Immediate disclosure of rape by the prosecutrix - Version of prosecutrix unchallenged - Admission by the accused in village panchayat - Medical evidence also another proof - Accused behind bar for five years - SC held - Defence cannot take advantage of bad investigation where there is clinching evidence available to the Prosecution."
64 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Vs. State of Rajasthan (2007) 2 SCC (Crl.) 382 has held that that defective investigation would not lead to total rejection of prosecution case.
65 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of MP Vs Man Singh ( 2007) 2 SCC 390 in this regard has held as follows:
" Criminal Trial- Investigation- Deficiencies in investigation- Effect- Held, cannot be a ground to discard the prosecution version which is authentic, credible and cogent- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973- S.157."
66 In Karnail Singh Vs. State of MP 1995 SCC 977it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court that in case of defective investigation it would not be proper to acquit the accused if the case is otherwise established conclusively because in that event it would tantamount to be falling in the hands of an erring Investigating Officer.
67 Considering the case from all the angles there is no merit in this argument of Ld. Defence counsel.
68 Ld. Defence Counsel argued that PW7 has deposed that CC No.34/2010 31/45 32 complainant had came to ACB at about 10.45 PM and had written his complaint at about 11 A M in his presence. PW12 Inspector P C Jha has stated that complainant came to him at 11.10 AM and written his complaint Ex PW 6/A, hence there is contradiction in the case of prosecution, on this point also.
69 It is correct that there are some contradictions with regard to timings as disclosed by prosecution witnesses referred above. These contradictions are of minor nature only and do not affect the merits of the case.
70 The law regarding contradiction was considered by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Bharuda Broginbhai Harjibhai V/S State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 where in it was held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution should not be attached undue importance. Their Lordships have enumerated following reasons for arriving of this conclusion:
i) " By and large a witness cannot be expected to possess a photographic memory and to recall the details of an incident. It is not as if a video tape is replayed on the mental screen.\ CC No.34/2010 32/45 33
ii) Ordinarily, it is so happen that a witness is over taken by events the witness could not have anticipated the occurrence which so often has an element of surprise.
Thus mental faculties, therefore, cannot be expected to be attuned to absorb the details.
iii) The powers of observance differ from person to person, but one may noticed another may not. An object or movement might emboss image on one person's mind, whereas it might go unnoticed on the part of another.
iv)By and large people cannot accurately recall a conversation and reproduced the very words used by them or heard by them. They can only recall the main purport of the conversation. It is unrealistic to expect a witness to be a human tape recorder.
v) In regard to exact time of an incident or the time duration of an occurrence, usually, people make their estimate by guess work as spare of moment, at the time of interrogation and one cannot expect people make very precise or reliable estimate in such matter. Again it depends upon the time sense of individuals which varies from person to person.
vi) Ordinarily, a witness cannot be expected to recall CC No.34/2010 33/45 34 accurately the sequence of events which take place in rapid succession of in a short time span. A witness is liable to get confuse or mixed up when interrogated later on.
vii) A witness though wholly truthful, is liable to be overawed by the Court atmosphere and the piercing cross examination made by counsel and out of nervousness mixed up facts, get confused regarding sequence of events., or fill up details of imagination at the spur of moment. The sub conscious mind of the witness sometime so operates on account of the fear of looking foolish or being disbelieved though the witness is giving a truthful and an honest account of the occurrence witnessed by him perhaps it is a sort of physiological movement".
71 In view of the law discussed above it cannot be said that the contradiction pointed out by Ld. Counsel for accused are very vital contradictions. These are contradiction which are likely to occur with the passage of time. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case State of UP V/S M.K. Anthony, AIR 1985 SC 48 has laid down the principle for appreciating the evidence of a witness as under:
CC No.34/2010 34/45 35" While appreciating the evidence of a witness the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole, appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the Court to scrutinize the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw backs and infirmities, pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether, it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render if unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies of trivial matter, not touching the core of the case, hypertechnical approach by taking sentence torn out of context here and there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the root of the matter, would not ordinarily permit rejection of evidence as a whole."
" Their Lordships further observed:
" Unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations of infirmities in the manner of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention, and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal dual between the rustic and refined lawyer."
72 Ld. Defence counsel on the point of contradictions has placed reliance on Diwesh Narayan Vs. State of Bihar of Hon'ble High Court of Jharkhand and Gurcharan Singh Vs. State of Haryana of CC No.34/2010 35/45 36 Hon'ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana but the above relied upon authorities in this Judgment by this Court are of Hon'ble Supreme Court. It is well settled legal preposition that law laid down by Hon'ble Supreme Court will prevail over the law laid down by the Hon'ble High Courts.
73 Ld. Defence counsel argued that complainant has deposed in the court that accused had not demanded and accepted any bribe money from him as entry fee. PW8 Bijender Singh has also deposed that accused had not demanded entry fee from him. Complainant has deposed in this court that complaint Ex PW 6/A was written by him after conducting the raid on the dictation of Raid Officer P C Jha, it proves that officials of ACB falsely implicated the accused in this case.
74 The law is that even if the complainant and independent witness have turned hostile, conviction can be made on the solitary statement of the trap officer without corroboration if it inspire confidence. Reference is placed on case on Hazari Lal Vs State ( Delhi Admn) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873. In that case the allegations against the accused who was a police officer was that he demanded bribe from the complainant for release of his scooter rickshaw which was seized by the police. The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However during the trial complainant CC No.34/2010 36/45 37 turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs.60/- from him and when he went to the police station along with panch witness he found accused there and asked him to take a sum of Rs.60/- and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of accused's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from accepted the amount. The panch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other panch witness turned hostile. The conviction was based on the statement of the trap officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held as under:-
" We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Authony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is not rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence , which requires that the evidence of such officer should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on CC No.34/2010 37/45 38 corroboration . In facts and circumstances, of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case,the Court may unhesitatingly accept the evidence of such an officer."
75 The Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of State of UP Vs Zakaullah AIR 1998 SC 1474 held " that the evidence of trap officer can be relied upon even without corroboration if it inspire confidence."
76 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Krishna Mochi & Ors vs State of Bihar (2002) 6 Supreme Court Cases 81 has held as follows:
"It is a matter of common experience that in recent times there has been a sharp decline of ethical values in public life even in developed countries much less a developing one, like ours, where the ratio of decline is higher. Even in ordinary cases, witnesses are not inclined to depose or their evidence is not found to be credible by courts for manifold reasons. One of the reasons may be that they do not have courage to deposed against an accused because of threats to their life, more so when the offenders are habitual criminals or high- ups in the Government or to close to powers, which may be political, economic or other powers including muscle power.
Thus, in a criminal trial a Prosecutor is faced with so many odds. The court while appreciating the evidence should not lose sight of these realities of life and cannot afford to take an unrealistic approach by sitting in an ivory tower. I find that in recent time the tendency to acquit an accused easily is galloping fast. It is very easy to pass an order of acquittal on the basis of minor points raised in the case by a short judgment so as to achieve the yardstick of disposal. Some discrepancy is bound to be there in each and every case which should not weigh with the court so long it does not materially affect the prosecution case. In case discrepancies pointed out are in the realm of pebbles, the court should tread upon it, but if the same are CC No.34/2010 38/45 39 boulders, the court should not make an attempt to jump over the same. These days when when crime is looming large and humanity is suffering and the society is so much affected thereby, duties and responsibilities of the courts have become much more. Now the maxim " Let hundred guilty persons be acquitted, but not a single innocent be convicted " is, in practice, changing the world over and Courts have been compelled to accept that "
society suffers by wrong convictions and is equally suffers by wrong acquittals". I find that this Court in recent times has conscientiously taken notice of these facts from time to time."
77 Hon'ble Supreme Court in Inder Singh Vs State ( Delhi Administration) AIR 1978 Supreme Court 1091 has held as follows:
"Credibility of testimony, oral circumstantial depends considerably on a judicial evaluation of the totality, not isolated scrutiny. While it is necessary that proof beyond reasonable doubt should be adduced in all criminal cases, it is not necessary that it should be perfect, If a case is proved too perfectly, it is argued that it is artificial; if a case has some flaws, inevitable because human beings are prone to err, it is argued that it is too imperfect. One wonders whether in the meticulous hypersensitivity to eliminate a rare innocent from being punished, many guilty men must be callously allowed to escape. Proof beyond reasonable doubt is a guideline, not a fetish and guilty man cannot get away with it because truth suffers some infirmity when projected through human processes. Judicial quest for perfect proof often accounts for police presentation of fool-proof concoction. Why fake up? Because the Court asks for manufacture to make truth look true? No, we must be realistic."
78 Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of U.P Vs Anil Singh has observed as follows:
"It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If CC No.34/2010 39/45 40 there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the Court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also preside to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. But are public duties which the judge has to perform.
79 In the case of State of W.B. Vs Orilal Jaswal it was held that justice cannot be made sterile on the plea that it is better to let a hundred guilty escape than punish an innocent. Letting the guilty escape is not doing justice, according to law . In the case of Mohan Singh Vs State of M.P it was held that Courts have been removing chaff from the grain. It has to disperse the suspicious cloud and dust out the smear of dust as all these things clog the very truth. So long chaff, cloud and dust remain, the criminals are clothed with the protective layer to receive the benefit of doubt. So it is a solemn duty of the Courts, not to merely conclude and leave the case the moment suspicious are created. It is the onerous duty of the Court, within permissible limit to find out the truth . It means, on one hand no innocent man should be punished but on the other hand to see no person committing an offence should be get scot-free. If in spite of such effort suspicion is not dissolved, it remains writ at large, benefit of doubt has to be credited to the accused.
80 I have carefully gone through the authorities relied upon by Ld. Defence Counsel in support of his arguments. In Ayyasamy and another Vs. State, 1996 Crl. L J 119 it has been held that CC No.34/2010 40/45 41 testimony of complainant and investigating officer was suspicious. Material documents were also not sent to court. Entries in Journal diary stating the place of occurrence was also not clear, hence the accused was acquitted. However, the facts of our case are different than that of this authority as discussed above. In the case, in hand panch witness, IO and Raid Officer have fully supported the case of prosecution.
81 In Ramdas Vs. State of Maharashtra accused was acquitted because IO had given hot chase to accused in order to trap him. Presence of complainant was not known when accused was being given a hot chase. Prosecution could not prove the demand of bribe money by the accused. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
82 In Sudershans Kumar Vs. State of Haryana, 1995 Crl. L J 2013 complainant was not examined and evidence of trap witness was not corroborated by other independent witnesses. Prosecution could not prove that GC notes were treated with phenolphthalein. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case. 83 In case of, State of Maharashtra Vs. J B Singh 2000 Crl L J 4591, complainant turned hostile. Prosecution witnesses stated CC No.34/2010 41/45 42 that SI told them that accused be paid some money for releasing complainant. It was held by the court that demand could not be proved. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
84 In State of AP Vs. P Venugopal 2006 Cr L J 4891 recovery of money was affected from the purse kept on TV in front hall and not from the person of accused hence it was held that ,there was possibility of keeping money by the complainant without the knowledge of the accused. In the case in hand, recovery of money was affected from the fist of accused . As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
85 In State of HP Vs Sukhdev Singh 2005 Crl L J 1136, prosecution could not prove the demand of bribe money by the accused hence the Hon'ble High Court acquitted the accused. In our case demand of bribe money by the accused is well proved. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
CC No.34/2010 42/45 4386 In Som Parkash Vs State of Punjab AIR 1992 SC 665, accused was acquitted because the witnesses in the trap team were not independent witnesses. In the case in hand, punch witness is an independent witness from a different department. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
87 In Ram Kishan Vs State of Haryana, 1993 (1) RCR 312 accused was acquitted because prosecution could not produced any independent evidence to prove the demand of bribe money made by accused. As discussed above in case in hand, prosecution has produced independent evidence to prove the demand of bribe by the accused. As discussed above facts of case in hand are different than this authority hence the ratio of law laid down in it does not applicable in this case.
88 Hon'ble Supreme Court in State of Punjab Vs. Pohla Singh, 2003 (3) CCC 75 has held as follows:
"Appreciation of evidence - The prosecution is not supposed to meet every hypothetical question raised by the defence -If crime is to be punished in a glosseme way niceities must yield to realistic CC No.34/2010 43/45 44 appraisal."
89 Prevention of Corruption Act is a social legislation enacted with the object to curb illegal activities of public servants, in these circumstances according to the law of interpretation of Statute, its provision should be interpreted so as to achieve its object. Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Ram Singh Vs. State of MP (2000) 5 Supreme Court Cases-88 has held as follows:
"Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Nature and interpretation of -Held is a social legislation to curb illegal activities of public servant and should be liberally construed so as to advance its object and not liberally in favour of the accused - interpretation of Statutes -Particular statutes or provisions - Penal statute - Social Legislation - Interpretation of".
90 In case U/S 13 (1) (d) of P C Act 1988 prosecution has to prove that :
i) That accused should be a public servant.
ii) That he should used some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abused his position as a public servant,
iii) That the accused should have thereby obtained a valuable thing or pecuniary advantage.CC No.34/2010 44/45 45
iv) Such benefit for himself or for any other person.
91 In view of above discussion it is well proved from the evidence produced by the prosecution that accused, who was working as traffic constable in Delhi Police , as a public servant, had demanded Rs. 300/- from Rakesh Kumar as illegal gratification on the pretext of entry fees which was recovered from his possession, thus accused abused his official position. In these circumstances this court is of opinion that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts against accused, hence accused is convicted for the offences punishable U/s 7 & U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1 (d) of P C Act, 1988.
announced in open court on ( V. K. Maheshwari) this 7th day of September, 2010 SPECIAL JUDGE: DELHI CC No.34/2010 45/45 46 IN THE COURT OF V .K .MAHESHWARI SPECIAL JUDGE: (P C Act)-03 CBI) DELHI Case No. 34/2010 FIR No. 30/07 State Vs. Parmod Kumar State Vs. Constable Parmod Kumar S/O Om Parkash Village -Sisauli, P S Bhaura Kalan, Distt. Muzaffer Nagar, UP ORDER ON SENTENCE:
Vide my separate judgment dated 7.9.2010 accused was convicted for the offence punishable U/s 7 & U/s 13 (2) r/w 13 1 (d) of P C Act, 1988.
Arguments on sentence heard. It is argued on behalf of convict that he is a young man. He is not a previous convict. He is facing this trial since 2007. He is the sole bread earner of his family. He is having two school going children. His one brother has expired whose son is also dependent upon him. He is having no other case against him except the present one. It is argued that in these circumstances, lenient view may be taken against him.
It is argued by Ld Addl PP for ACB that accused has CC No.34/2010 46/45 47 voluntarily and deliberately delayed this trial by absenting himself from the Court and by seeking unnecessary adjournment, any leniency shown to him in awarding the sentence will be undesirable and will also be against public interest. He has argued convict is involved in a serious corruption case inspite of being a public servant. He is working as Constable in Delhi Traffic Police . He had demanded and accepted Rs.300/- as illegal gratification on the pretext of entry fees and was caught red handed . He should be awarded severe punishment and heavy fine may also be imposed on him.
Corruption is a scourge that not only severally affects progress and development in the society but also poses a grave challenge to governance itself. The United Nations Global Reports on Crime and Justice quotes public opinion surveys in a number of countries, to point out that citizenry in those countries ranks corruption as one among the five most important problems facing their society. More importantly, the public in such countries seriously questions the ability of the Criminal Justice Administration to provide any bulwark against corruption. The consequence of such perceptions is a growing public cynicism and distrust in almost all the Government institutions, which is a matter of serious concern. Unfortunately, India ranks prominently high in the list of countries plagued by corruption. Anti Corruption measures in India are perceived by the people to be weak CC No.34/2010 47/45 48 and ineffective. More than corruption itself , it is the widespread public perception that corruption is not or would not be punished, that is detrimental to the society.
Our Hon'ble Supreme Court in Swatantar Singh Vs. State of Haryana, (1997) 4 S.C.C. 14, has observed that corruption is corroding, like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseable clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya Pradesh Vs. Ram Singh 2000 Crl. L.J. 1401 while dealing with the case of a Sub- Inspector, Excise & District Excise Officer, involved in a case under Section 13(1) (e) of the Act, inter-alia observed as follows:-
" Corruption in a civilised society is a disease like cancer, which if not detected in time is sure to maliganise the polity of country leading to disastrous consequences. It is termed as plague which is not only contagious but if not controlled spreads like a fire in a jungle. Its virus is compared with HIV leading to AIDS, being incurable. It has also been termed as Royal thievery. The socio-political system exposed to CC No.34/2010 48/45 49 such a dreaded communicable disease is likely to crumble under its own weight. Corruption is opposed to democracy and social order, being not only anti people, but aimed and targeted against them. It affects the economy and destroys the cultural heritage. Unless nipped in the bud at the earliest, it is likely to cause turbulence shaking of the socio-
economic-political system in an otherwise healthy, wealthy, effective and vibrating society."
So the aforesaid sentiments expressed by the Apex court clearly shows that acts of corruption by " Public servants " deserve to be dealt with an iron hand and such public servants do not deserve any sympathy.
In view of above discussion, lenient view can be taken if the reasons are grave and serious. In this case, reasons for taking lenient view are ordinary hence this Court is not inclined to accept the plea for lenience raised on behalf of accused.
After considering all the arguments raised before me, Convict is sentenced to undergo Four years RI along with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) I D Three months S I U/S 7 and to undergo Four years RI along with a fine of Rs10,000/-(Rs. Ten Thousand) I D three months S I U/S 13 (2) R/w Section 13(1) (d) of P C Act 1988. Both the sentences will run concurrently. Benefit of Section 428 Cr P C be also given to accused.
CC No.34/2010 49/45 50A copy of judgment and this order on sentence be given to convict free of cost. File be consigned to RR.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT (V K MAHESHWARI) TODAY ON 8th SEPT. 2010 SPECIAL JUDGE: DELHI CC No.34/2010 50/45