Delhi District Court
State vs . Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 1 Of 21 on 18 February, 2014
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, SPECIAL JUDGE
(PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL),
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
Date of Institution :13.09.2012
Date of reserving the Judgment :11.02.2014
Date of pronouncing the Judgment :18.02.2014
Corruption Case No. : 26/2012
FIR No. : 44/2008
Case Identification No. : 02401R0441522012
PS : Anti Corruption Branch
Under Section : U/s 120B IPC and 7 of
Prevention of Corruption
Act r/w section 120B IPC.
STATE
Versus
1. Mahender Kumar Verma ( since expired)
S/o Sh. P. K. Verma
R/o 1810, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp,
Delhi.
(proceeding against him declared to
have abated vide order dt. 31.10.2012.)
2. Gajraj Singh
S/o Late Sh. Bhoop Singh
R/o H.No. E5/240, Nehru Vihar,
PS Gokalpuri, Mustafabad, Delhi.
JUDGMENT
State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 1 of 21
2
1.1 The case of the prosecution is that one Naushad, a contractor, was carrying out unauthorized construction in Flat No.234, J & K Block, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. Accused Gajraj, a Baildar in MCD, came to the site and demanded Rs.40,000/ as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration for permitting the construction. On Naushad's request for scaling down the demand, he advised him to meet the Junior Engineer (J.E.) Gajraj took the telephone number of Naushad and called him up 23 days later to fix the appointment with the J.E. Complainant approached PSACB on 16.12.2008 and disclosed the incident. He was advised to record the conversation of demand, between himself and J.E.. Constable Suresh was sent with him. A recording device was also handed over to complainant, who was also carrying his own camera. He went to the office of J.E. on 16.12.2008. However, J.E. was not available. Naushad, then spoke to J.E. Mr. Verma on telephone no.9810576805. JE called him to BBlock market, where conversation was carried out between them, which was recorded. During the conversation, J.E. demanded an amount of Rs. 40,000/ as illegal gratification for permitting the unauthorized construction of four rooms.
1.2 On 19.12.2008, complainant again came to the office of PS ACB, from where he made a phone call using his mobile no.9899825347, to Baildar Gajraj Singh on his mobile no.9268368887, at about 02:30 PM. During this conversation, Baildar Gajraj Singh was informed by the complainant that J.E. is sticking to the demand of Rs. 40,000/. At this, State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 2 of 21 3 Baildar Gajraj Singh, offered to intervene in scaling down the demand, in case the complainant reached the office with a minimum amount of Rs. 20,000/. This conversation was also recorded. Complainant arranged for Rs.15,000/ to be given to JE and Baildar Gajraj Singh. A raiding team was constituted of Panch witness and officials of PSACB. They all reached PSBhajanpura at 03:30 PM, where accused Gajraj had called them. Complainant and the Panch witness met Gajraj Singh, who asked them to deliver the money at a shop. Complainant asked Gajraj Singh to accompany him to a shop, so that he could hand over the bribe money to the person pointed out by the Gajraj Singh. During this time, complainant also spoke to JE on phone. Complainant and the Panch witness came to the Raid officer ACP Prem Chand to seek instructions; when they returned, baildar Gajraj had probably become suspicious and escaped from the spot.
1.3 The trap having failed the raiding team returned to PS ACB. Accused persons were summoned to PSACB and confronted with the audio & video CD. They were formally arrested. Their voice samples were collected on their willingness. Voice samples and recorded CD were sent to the FSL, Rohini, Delhi. As per the FSL report, voice sample and the voice recorded in the CD matched with each other. Sanction u/sec.19 of the POC Act for prosecuting both the accused persons was sought.
2. On getting sanction for prosecuting both the accused State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 3 of 21 4 persons, charge sheet was filed. Cognizance of the offence was taken and both the accused persons were summoned to face trial. Mahender Kumar Verma was reported to have expired. Proceeding qua him, therefore, were declared to have abated, vide dated 31.10.2012. Vide order dated 03.04.2013, charge was framed against accused Gajraj Singh for offence punishable u/s120B IPC and under section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w section 120B IPC. Accused Gajraj pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
3.1 Prosecution in support of its case examined, as many as, 32 witnesses. Naushad ( PW12 ) and Anil Choudhary ( PW30 ) are the star witnesses. Naushad is the complainant who is protagonist of prosecution case. He has deposed about the initial demand by the accused which was made on a visit at the site of the construction. He has also proved the audio & video recordings of demand by coaccused Mahinder Kumar Verma ( since expired) and also the accused. He proved his complaint and constitution of the raiding party. He also deposed that at the time of trap, accused Gajraj Singh became suspicious and escaped from the spot. Anil Choudhary (PW30) was the shadow witness, who had been instructed by raiding officer to remain with the complainant at the time of trap. He has proved that accused met the complainant at the time of trap and directed him to hand over money to a third person & then accused vanished from the spot. 3.2 Other witnesses have been examined to support the case of State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 4 of 21 5 the prosecution and to prove the telephonic conversation between the complainant and accused persons. The audio video recording and its authenticity has also been sought to be proved through scientific evidence.
3.3 Israr Babu ( PW2 ), Nodal Officer, Vodafone Mobile Services has proved that phone number 9899825347 was subscribed by complainant Naushad. R.K. Singh ( PW1 ), Nodal officer, Bharti Airtel Ltd. has proved that mobile number 9810576805 was subscribed in the name of M.K. Verma ( since expired ). Accused Gajraj made an oral statement in presence of Sushil Kumar, Panch witness ( PW6) that he was using phone number 9268368887 which was subscribed in the name of his wife Prem Wati. M.N. Vijayan (PW7) Nodal Officer, Tata Tele Services Ltd. has proved that phone number 9268368887 was subscribed in the name of Prem Wati W/o Gajraj.
3.4 HC Anand Swaroop (PW8 ) has proved recording of FIR No. 44/08 as Ex. PW8/A. HC Jatinder Singh ( PW4) was the MHC(M). He proved the safe custody of case property. HC Jai Prakash ( PW9 ), HC Suraj Pal ( PW10) and Ct. Bijender ( PW11) proved the movement of case property, scientific reports and remnants from malkhana to FSL and back. K.L. Meena ( PW28 ) proved various DD entries. 3.5 Panch witness roasters were proved by Alka Sharma (PW14), Manoj Kumar (PW15 ), K.R. Mehndiratta (PW5 ), Narender Passi ( PW21 ), M.P. Sharma ( PW22 ) and R.S. Solanki (PW23). State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 5 of 21 6 3.6 Voice sample of complainant Naushad (PW12 ) was taken in the presence of Brij Pal (PW18 ), panch witness. Ajay Kumar, Assistant Engineer (PW19 ) identified the voice of M.K. Verma ( since expired ). This witness despite cross examination by Ld. Additional PP declined to have identified the voice of Gajraj. However Rahul Choudhary (PW26) who was the panch witness to these proceedings deposed that Ajay Kumar, Assistant Engineer had identified the voice of both the accused persons. Mukesh Kumar Sharma ( PW24 ) proved willingness of accused Gajraj for giving his voice sample. Sh. Ved Prakash (PW25) was the panch witness to the recording of voice of accused persons at FSL. Report by FSL ( Ex. Pw32/4) opined that sample voice of Gajraj matched with his voice in the recorded conversation. 3.7 Sahdev Singh ( PW17 ) proved biodata of accused Gajraj. K.S. Mehra (PW3), Ex. Commissioner, MCD, proved sanction for prosecution of accused Gajraj.
3.8 Retired ACP Prem Chand ( PW31 ) was the raid officer. He proved lodging of complaint by Naushad, preparing transcripts of audio recording and raid proceedings. Inspector B.K. Singh ( PW32 ) IO proved the stages of investigation.
4. Shri Sanjay Soni, Ld. Additional Public Prosecutor for the State has argued that the demand of bribe of Rs. 40,000/ by accused Gajraj is proved in the testimony of Naushad (PW12 ). The witness has also proved recording of conversation between him and accused M.K. State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 6 of 21 7 Verma (since expired ) and also between him and accused Gajraj. Referring to the transcript Ex. PW32/B; it is argued, that demand of Rs. 10,000/ for each of the four floors being constructed is amply proved. Reference is also made to telephonic conversation between present accused and the complainant, transcript whereof is Ex. PW32/B which corroborates the demand by accused M.K. Verma and assurance by present accused that he will intervene and get the amount reduced. It is further argued that the initial demand made by accused Gajraj was followed up subsequently also, which has been proved by way of audio recording of conversation. It is further argued that telephonic talk between accused persons and complainant are corroborated by the call record details. It is also argued that Anil Choudhary ( PW30 ) who was associated by the Raid Officer (RO) as shadow witness has corroborated the complainant's version that accused Gajraj came to collect the bribe money on behalf of himself and coaccused M.K. Verma (since expired ). It is thus argued that accused Gajraj in conspiracy with M.K. Verma ( since expired ) demanded and in fact attempted to obtain from the complainant illegal gratification for himself and for his superior M.K. Verma ( since expired ) as a motive or reward for forbearing to do an official act. He, thus, committed an offence punishable u/s 120B IPC and section 7 PC Act r/w section 120B IPC.
5. Sh. Rakesh Kumar, Ld. defence counsel has strongly contested the case. It is argued that prosecution case has no legs to stand State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 7 of 21 8 upon. The story of demand from a mason does not appeal to common sense. There is no explanation as to why the the owners of flats who had engaged the mason have not been examined to prove the demand. The complainant is not even a contractor/builder who might have undertaken to bear the expenses of construction, including the 'ancillary expenses'. Referring to the testimony of Naushad (PW12 ), it is submitted that he had gone to PS ACB with prewritten complaint. He has not deposed any specific date, place and time of the initial demand. He has also not explained as to who and how the cell phone number of accused was disclosed to the complainant. Referring to the testimony of Anil Choudhary ( PW30 ), it is argued that all the proceedings were conducted at PS ACB, with a view to falsely implicate the accused persons at the instance of one journalist namely Seema Bhattacharya. Complainant Naushad (PW12) has also referred to said Seema Bhattacharya, but prosecution has with held her as a witness, though she was materially involved in the raid.
6. I have heard the Ld. counsels and perused the entire evidence and material on record with their assistance. Smt. Bimla Dass (PW13 ) and M.P. Jain (PW16 ) are the owners of one floor each, in premises No. 234B, J & K Pocket, Dilshad Garden, Delhi. They have both deposed that all the occupants had engaged a contractor to construct one room on each floor. Naimuddin ( PW20 ) is another mason who has deposed that he was also engaged for the aforesaid State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 8 of 21 9 construction and Naushad too was working at the site. Thus, it can be safely concluded that Naushad had been engaged to carry out the construction. His presence at the site is, therefore, natural.
7. 1 Naushad (PW12 ) is the star prosecution witness. The entire cases hinges on his testimony. He deposed that he was engaged to construct one room on each of the four floors in the rear portion of the premises, which construction was unauthorised. He identified the accused and deposed that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 40,000/, to permit unauthorised construction. Accused instructed him to meet Junior Engineer concerned and directed the witness to stop the construction. Accused himself was a baildar in MCD. Witness further deposed that on 16.12.2008 he went to PS ACB and narrated the facts to the officers. He was given a recording machine and also button whole camera. One Constable was sent with him. He was instructed to meet the JE and record the conversation. Witness met the JE in Vivek Vihar, B Block market where during conversation JE demanded Rs. 10,000/ from him for each of the four rooms, as bribe. On the asking of JE, accused offered Rs. 3,000/ which was declined by JE using uncivil language. Witness went again to PS ACB on 19.12.2008 and was instructed to record telephonic conversation with accused Gajraj. The conversation was recorded on an audio recorder made available by officials of PS ACB. In the conversation accused told the witness that he had spoken to JE and advised the witness to reach outside PS Bhajanpura with money, State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 9 of 21 10 where JE would also be present. Witness has then deposed that he had carried with him Rs. 15,000/ in three GC notes of Rs. 1,000/ and 24 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each. After demonstrating the use of phenolphthalein powder, complainant and panch witness went to PS Bhajanpura with the raiding team. Accused Gajraj was present there and he told the witness that JE had left shortly before. Witness offered the money to Gajraj, who refused to accept the same and directed him to deliver the same in the office of some private person located nearby. The proceeding having taken an unexpected turn, witness excused himself on the pretext of going for urinal and sought further instructions from the RO. He returned to the spot but accused had escaped from there. 7.2 With the assistance of Ld. Additional PP, witness further deposed that accused had taken his phone number from him and called him up 2/3 days later to meet JE Sahab. He also deposed that accused Gajraj, who was a baildar had assured to mediate between him and JE Verma for getting the demanded amount reduced. He also deposed that he was given an audio recorder by PS ACB but button hole camera was made available by one of his friends. He had handed over the camera and its chip to officials of PSACB. He admitted having consented for giving his voice sample. He identified his voice in CD Ex. P1 and also that of accused/Junior Engineer M.K. Verma ( since expired). He also identified the video footage in CD Ex. P1 to have been recorded by him wherein J.E. M.K. Verma is seen demanding the bribe. He also proved State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 10 of 21 11 CD Ex. P3 which contained the audio recording containing demand of bribe by accused Gajraj. He also proved transcript of the audio recording.
7.3 On being cross examined he deposed that he had been engaged on contract to raise the construction. Accused Gajraj had met him in December 2008, but he did not remember the exact date. He had been engaged by owners of the flats. He had spoken to the employer about the demand of bribe but employer did not lodge any complaint against the accused. He further deposed that he had been engaged as a mason on daily wages @ Rs.250/ per day. Button hole camera had been provided to him by one Seema, who worked in a newspaper and had been introduced to him by the person who had engaged him for raising the construction. On another query by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that demand was made by Gajraj in the name of JE Verma but he did not know whether the money was for himself or for JE Verma. At the time of demand, owner and his wife had gone for their work and their daughter had gone to school. He denied the suggestion that there was no demand by Gajraj. As regards the incident of 19.12.2008, he deposed that he reached at PS Bhajanpura when sun was still shining. He admitted the possibility of some other person attending the phone call made by him to accused Gajraj. He admitted that there was no video or photograph of accused Gajraj of making the demand. 7.4 Anil Choudhary ( PW30 ) is the other material witness cited State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 11 of 21 12 and examined by the prosecution. The role of this witness is to support the prosecution case as regards the demand by accused Gajraj at the time of failed trap. He has deposed that he was associated as panch witness on 19.12.2008 and after explaining the preraid proceeding he was associated in the raid. He deposed that the raiding team left for PS Bhajanpura and reached there at 3.50 PM. Complainant and the witness were instructed by the Raid Officer to meet Gajraj Singh, baildar. On meeting the accused complainant told him that he had brought the bribe money. Accused asked the complainant to give the bribe money at a shop situated nearby. Complainant then asked accused to make him speak with JE M.K. Verma on phone. Accused facilitated the phone call. Witness further deposed that complainant made an excuse for going to urinal and instead went to RO and sought further instructions. When they both returned to the spot after seeking instructions from the raid officer, accused had left the spot. On being cross examined he deposed that complainant had not made any phone call to the accused in his presence. He had rather received a phone call from the accused on reaching the spot where vehicles were being parked, at about 3.50 PM. He had not heard the conversation .
8. Prosecution case can be split into following four stages, for effective evaluation of evidence.
(i) Visit by accused Gajraj at the construction site, when initial demand was made.
State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 12 of 21 13
(ii) Meeting of complainant with accused M.K. Verma ( since expired ) on 16.12.2008, when audio & video recording of demand was conducted.
(iii) Telephonic demand by accused Gajraj on 19.12.2008 at about 2.30 PM.
(iv) Demand by accused Gajraj at the time trap.
9. I shall now deal with the evidence collected by the prosecution for each of the aforesaid four stages.
(i) Visit by accused Gajraj at the construction site, when initial demand was made.
10.1 The only witness of demand, at this stage, is complainant Naushad. He has sworn in his testimony that the demand was made by accused Gajraj, baildar in MCD, by visiting the site of construction. The accused had also got the construction stopped. Nothing contradictory came up during the cross examination of witness, as regards this part of his testimony. Ld. defence counsel contested this allegation, with the argument that complainant was only a mason; demand should logically have been made from the owner of premises. The argument does seem to be appealing, but in my opinion the argument is only conjectural. It is correct that the owner of premises has not come up to depose about the demand but subsequent conduct of the complainant and the accused persons which is admissible under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act gives credence to complainant's version. The fact that complainant met accused M.K. Verma and made audio video record of State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 13 of 21 14 conversation with him, as regards the demand indicates that the demand was made from him. Gajraj also agreed to meet the complainant to collect the bribe. Had there been no demand from complainant, accused persons would not have entertained him. 10.2 Absence of any other witness to the initial demand is explained by Naushad (PW27) in his cross examination. He deposed that employer and his wife had gone for work and their daughter had gone to school. The fact that construction was stopped, ( which has not been challenged by the ld. defence counsel) is also a subsequent relevant conduct to prove that accused Gajraj visited the construction site, made a demand and got the construction stopped. Telephonic discussion between complainant and the accused persons and arrival of accused Gajraj at PS Bhajanpura to collect bribe is also a subsequent conduct which corroborates the complainant's version that demand of bribe was made from him. Argument by Ld. defence counsel that Naushad has not disclosed time/date of first visit and first demand; pales into insignificance in the face of overwhelming evidence, as noticed above.
(ii) Meeting of complainant with accused M.K. Verma ( since expired ) on 16.12.2008, when audio & video recording of demand was conducted.
11. 1 Naushad ( PW12) has deposed that on demand of Rs. 40,000/ towards bribe made by accused Gajraj, he was instructed to meet JE M.K. Verma. On 16.12.2008 Naushad went to PS ACB and was advised to record the conversation of demand between himself and JE State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 14 of 21 15 M.K. Verma. He has deposed that he went to meet M.K. Verma who was not available in the office and they met at B Block Market, Vivek Vihar. During this meeting JE M.K. Verma made a demand of Rs. 40,000/. This conversation was got video recorded and audio recorded by the complainant. The transcript of audio recording Ex. PW32/U contains the demand by JE Verma of Rs. 10,000/ for each of the four rooms. It also contains the threat by JE of issuance of notice for the unauthorised construction. Ct. Suresh Kumar (PW27) who had accompanied complainant for the aforesaid recording has also corroborated the version that Naushad made recording of conversation between himself and JE M.K. Verma.
11.2 The relevance of this conversation is to establish the offence of conspiracy, between present accused and accused JE M.K. Verma ( since expired ). In the transcript of conversation Ex. PW32/U complainant has introduced himself to have been sent by accused Gajraj. JE Verma then made the demand of same amount which Gajraj had initially demanded; which establishes meeting of mind and conspiracy to demand bribe of aforesaid amount. The authenticity of audio recording between complainant and accused M.K. Verma ( since expired ) is also proved by the testimony of Karnail Singh ( PW29 ) who had converted the audio track from the digital voice recorder to CD Ex. P1. The transcript of conversation and its authenticity is proved by RO/Inspector B.K. Singh(PW32). FSL report Ex. PW32/H opines that the State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 15 of 21 16 audio track was continuous and unaltered. FSL report also opines that the voice contained in the conversation is of complainant and accused Mahinder Kumar Verma.
(iii) Telephonic demand by accused Gajraj on 19.12.2008 at about 2.30 PM.
12.1 Naushad ( PW12) has further deposed that on 19.12.2008 he was instructed to record telephonic conversation with accused Gajraj. He dialed his mobile number and put the call on speaker mode. Conversation was recorded in an audio recorder. On being questioned by Ld. defence counsel, he deposed that mobile phone used by him was bearing number 9899825347. He deposed that during this conversation accused Gajraj asked him to reach outside PS Bhajanpura with the money, where JE Verma was also present with him. On being cross examined by Ld. Additional PP, he deposed that call was made to Gajraj on mobile phone number 9268368887. The factum of call is proved by the call detail record of the mobile phone of the complainant which has been proved as Ex. PW32/E, which records call between aforesaid numbers having been made on 19.12.2008 at 13.24 hours which lasted 158 seconds. Contents of this conversation were recorded by Karnail Singh ( PW29), who saved the same in his office computer and lateron converted into CD Ex. P1. The transcript of the conversation prepared by RO/Inspector B.K. Singh Ex. PW32/B, was also identified by the complainant Naushad, in his testimony, when it was marked as Mark B. In the transcript of the conversation Ex. PW32/B, complainant is State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 16 of 21 17 recorded to have told accused that JE M.K. Verma is sticking to his demand of Rs. 40,000/. Accused Gajraj assured to intervene but insisted on bringing atleast Rs. 20,000/. He also directed the complainant to immediately reach PS Bhajanpura, where they were both present.
12.2 The aforesaid conversation as contained in transcript Ex. PW32/B also establishes a conspiracy between Gajraj and M.K. Verma for demand of bribe from complainant, for permitting him to carry on with the unauthorised construction. Apparently there is active participation of accused Gajraj who orchestrated a meeting at PS Bhajanpura where complainant, was advised by him to come with atleast Rs. 20,000/.
(iv) Demand by accused Gajraj at the time trap. 13.1 Proverbial last nail in the coffin is the meeting at PS
Bhajanpura, between accused Gajraj and complainant, in the presence of panch witness Anil Choudhary (PW30 ). Naushad (PW12) has deposed that when they reached PS Bhajanpura with the raiding team. He and the panch witness went towards PS Bhajanpura. Accused was present there and told him that JE had left shortly earlier. Complainant offered the money to Gajraj who refused to take the same and directed him to deliver the same in the office of some private person located nearby. Panch witness Anil Choudhary ( PW30 ) has also corroborated this version of the complainant. During cross examination of both the witnesses nothing contrary could come out. Both the witnesses have State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 17 of 21 18 correctly identified accused Gajraj.
13.2 In the aforesaid facts and circumstances, I am of the opinion that presence of accused Gajraj at PS Bhajanpura on 19.12.2008 at about 3.50 PM was in immediate pursuance of his demand made at 2.30 PM during telephonic conversation with complainant. His presence was further in pursuance of his initial demand of Rs. 40,000/ as bribe made on a visit to the construction site. His presence was also in pursuance of the conspiracy between him and coaccused M.K. Verma ( since expired ) who had demanded amount of Rs. 40,000/ from the complainant during face to face meeting, which was recorded by the complainant. I am thus of the opinion that it was an attempt by accused Gajraj to obtain from the complainant for himself, as well as, for JE M.K. Verma ( since expired ) gratification other than legal remuneration as a reward for forbearing to do an official act, namely to stop permit unauthorised construction.
14. For the aforesaid reasons, I am of the opinion that prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt offences punishable u/s 120B IPC and section 7 of PC Act r/w section 120B IPC, to have been committed by accused Gajraj.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 18.02.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 18 of 21
19
IN THE COURT OF SH. NAROTTAM KAUSHAL, SPECIAL JUDGE (PC Act)05, (ACB), (CENTRAL), TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI Corruption Case No. : 26/2012 FIR No. : 44/2008 Case Identification No. : 02401R0441522012 PS : Anti Corruption Branch Under Section : U/s 120B IPC and 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act r/w section 120B IPC.
STATE Versus
1. Mahender Kumar Verma ( since expired) S/o Sh. P. K. Verma R/o 1810, Outram Lane, Kingsway Camp, Delhi.
(proceeding against him declared to have abated vide order dt. 31.10.2012.)
2. Gajraj Singh S/o Late Sh. Bhoop Singh R/o H.No. E5/240, Nehru Vihar, PS Gokalpuri, Mustafabad, Delhi.
ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. Vide judgment dated 18.02.2014 convict Gajraj Singh has been convicted for offences punishable u/s 120B IPC and section 7 of PC Act r/w section 120B IPC.
State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 19 of 21 20
2. Shri Sanjay Soni, Ld. Additional PP for State has prayed for maximum sentence. It is submitted that the convict who was working as Baildar in MCD demanded illegal gratification for permitting unauthorised construction. He had, thus, acted in violation of construction norms and was permitting haphazard construction. His conduct and action do not deserve any lenient approach.
3. Shri Rakesh Kumar and Sh. R.P. Singh, Ld. counsels for the convict have argued that convict has two daughters of marriageable age and one of them suffers from TB. It is also submitted that convict has large family to support and is the sole bread earner. It is, therefore, submitted that he be sentenced to the minimum punishment provided under the statue.
4. I have heard the Ld. counsels. The convict, who was working in the engineering wing of MCD, and was entrusted with the task of ensuring compliance of construction norms; acted in gross violation of the MCD norms and tried to abuse his position as public servant and demanded bribe. Though, the convict has large family to support and also daughters of marriageable age; yet, this would not be sufficient mitigating ground to sentence him for the minimum punishment provided in the statue. There is also no evidence of the convict being involved in similar activities in the past, therefore, he does not qualify to be liable for maximum sentence either.
5. In my considered opinion, ends of justice shall be served by State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 20 of 21 21 sentencing the convict to rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years for offence punishable u/s 7 of the PC Act r/w section 120 B IPC. He shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 20,000/ for this offence. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo SI for a period of six months. Convict shall also undergo rigorous imprisonment of two years for offence punishable u/s 120B IPC. He shall also be liable to pay fine of Rs. 10,000/ for this offence. In default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo SI for three months.
6. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. Benefit u/s 428 Cr.P.C. be accorded to the convict. Ordered accordingly.
File be consigned to Record Room.
Announced in the open Court (NAROTTAM KAUSHAL)
on 24.02.2014 SPECIAL JUDGE (PC ACT)05
(ACB), TIS HAZARI COURTS
State Vs. Mahender Kumar Verma & Oth. Page 21 of 21