Delhi District Court
Reliance On 1986 Cr.Lj 1101 (Ramesh vs . State) And Also on 21 January, 2013
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CC No. 14/2006 (Old No.)
CC NO. 43/2008 (New No.)
ID No. 02401R0905142006
CBI
Versus
Mohan Das Gupta,
S/o. Shri Lakshmi Narain Gupta,
R/o. RU-333, Pitampura, Delhi .....Accused
Case arising out of:
FIR No. RC-DAI-2005-A-0029
Date of FIR : 21.06.2005
Date of Institution : 28.09.2006
Date of Final Arguments : 10.01.2013
Date of Judgment : 21.01.2013
CC No. 43/2008 Page1 of 44
JUDGMENT:
1 FIR in the present case was registered on 21.06.2005 on basis of complaint made by the complainant Shri Uday Shanker Mishra. Facts as mentioned in the complaint were to the effect that the complainant had filed Income Tax Return for assessment year 2004-05 on 10.09.2004. It was further claimed that the Return was filed in Ward No. 26(4) of the Income Tax Department at ITO and that the complainant had claimed refund of Rs.1,85,343/- from the Department. It was further mentioned that on 06.02.2005 complainant had sent a letter to the Commissioner, Income Tax requesting for early refund of the amount. The complaint further mentioned the fact that on 13.06.2005 the complainant had gone to the concerned Ward where he met the Clerk 'Gupta Ji' and pleaded about his refund whereupon Gupta Ji was claimed to have declared that the case could not be settled without payment and that the ITO would never agree to settle the matter without consideration. It further mentioned that on the same day, Gupta Ji took the complainant to the ITO Shri Nahar who too was claimed to have stated that the complainant would not get refund without paying the bribe and was also claimed to have threatened the complainant to put his case in scrutiny if bribe was not paid. Shri Nahar was further claimed to have stated that the bribe amount would be CC No. 43/2008 Page2 of 44 settled by Gupta Ji. It was further mentioned that Gupta Ji asked the complainant to wait outside and after sometime informed him that the Officer Shri Nahar was not agreeing anything below Rs.25,000/-. The complainant allegedly had again met Shri Nahar on 20.06.2005 alongwith his C.A. Shri Ashok Gupta in presence of the Clerk Gupta Ji. It was claimed that after negotiations, the bribe amount was reduced from Rs.25,000/- to Rs.23,000/-. Complainant claimed to have recorded the said conversation and had enclosed the same alongwith his complaint to CBI. Complainant had prayed for legal action against H.K. Nahar and Gupta Ji. It was on basis of said complaint made by the complainant that FIR RC 29(A)/2005 came to be registered. A trap team was organized, trap laid and accused M.D. Gupta was claimed to have been apprehended red handed after he took the bribe amount from the complainant. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was duly filed in Court. 2 On 18.04.2007 charges were framed against the accused persons regarding their having committed offence punishable U/s. 120B r/w. 7, 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused M.D. Gupta was also separately charged with for having committed offence punishable U/s. 7 of PC Act and offence punishable U/s. 13(2) r/w. 13(1)(d) of PC Act. Similar charge was also separately framed against accused H.K. Nahar. During course of trial, accused H.K. Nahar expired and proceedings against him stood abated on CC No. 43/2008 Page3 of 44 that account. As such, accused M.D. Gupta is the alone accused presently under trial in this case. In order to prove its allegations against the accused, prosecution had examined as many as 16 witnesses. Thereafter, statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. and accused examined 4 witnesses in his defence. After final arguments were advanced by both sides, this Court has proceeded to pen down the judgment.
3 PW-1 Shri Gurcharanjeet Singh proved Sanction Order Ex.PW-1/A whereby he accorded sanction for prosecution of accused M.D. Gupta.
During course of cross-examination, witness denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind while granting sanction of prosecution against the accused. 4 PW-2 Shri Surender Pal proved Sanction Order Ex.PW-2/A in respect of accused H.K. Nahar (since deceased).
During course of cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not applied his mind at the time of according sanction or had accorded it on dictation of CBI without applying mind.
5 PW-3 Dr. Rajender Singh was from CFSL who claimed to have examined cassettes Q-1, Q-1(A), Q-2, S-1 & S-2. He proved on record his report Ex.PW-3/A and claimed that the sample voices of accused M.D. Gupta and H.K. Nahar matched with their respective voices in the cassettes CC No. 43/2008 Page4 of 44 Q-1, Q-1(A) & Q-2.
During course of cross-examination, witness denied the suggestion that he had only examined selected words or had given his opinion only on basis thereof. He claimed that he had given the breaks while listening the cassettes when spectrography as well as auditory tests were conducted but he did not remember the duration of the gaps. He also proved on record his auditory worksheet Ex.PW-3/D-1. Witness admitted that he had not given answer to query No. 3 as to whether the cassette was tampered with or not since no such facility was available at that time. He denied the suggestion that he had given his opinion on request of I.O. without examining the full cassette. 6 The complainant Shri Uday Shanker Mishra was examined as PW-4. During course of examination-in-chief, he claimed that he was in business of Share Trading and was an Income Tax assessee and had submitted Income Tax Return for assessment year 2004-05 seeking refund of about Rs.1.85 lacs. He claimed that on 13.06.2005 when he went to Income Tax Office (ITO) to enquire about his refund, accused M.D. Gupta (correctly identified) (A-1) told him that refund are not given like that and asked for bribe. Witness claimed that he got shocked and resisted paying any amount as he had not mentioned any wrong fact in his Return. He claimed that accused M.D. Gupta (A-1) then took him to his Officer Shri Nahar (A-2 rightly identified) where both asked him if he CC No. 43/2008 Page5 of 44 wanted to face the case in scrutiny or pay them Rs.40,000/-. Witness claimed that he neither agreed to the same nor refused. He claimed that thereafter either of them told him to sit outside and after sometime A-1 came outside and told the witness that A-2 had agreed to take Rs.25,000/-. Witness claimed that he again visited them on 20.06.2005 alongwith a cassette and a Recorder and met A-1 & A-2 and talked to them and recorded the conversation. Witness claimed that the accused had agreed to take Rs.23,000/- from him. He further claimed he went to CBI Office on the same day evening i.e. 20.06.2005 and met S.P., CBI and told him all the facts. Witness claimed that he was asked to come the next day alongwith written complaint and he accordingly went to CBI Office with the written complaint on 21.06.2005. and handed it over to S.P., CBI alongwith the audio cassette recorded on 20.06.2005. He proved the complaint Ex.PW-4/A. It was claimed that Inspector Brijesh was called and handed over the complaint for further action whereupon Inspector Brijesh took him to another room in CBI Office where two Managers of Punjab & Sindh Bank were present and he was introduced to them. Witness claimed that witnesses were informed about the complaint and he produced Rs.23,000/- which were treated with some chemical and their numbers noted down. He was also explained about treating of currency notes with chemical and that as and when the accused would accept the tainted money, the CC No. 43/2008 Page6 of 44 chemical /powder would touch his fingers and on washing the same in water its colour will become red. Witness claimed that chemical treated notes were kept in right side pocket of his pant and the male witness (out of two Managers of Punjab & Sindh Bank) was directed to accompany him to watch the transaction and over hear the conversation between him and the accused persons. CBI Officers were claimed to have handed over to him a small tape recorder. Witness claimed that while he was in CBI Office, he had received two telephone calls of the accused as he was in a hurry to receive Rs.23,000/-. Witness claimed that the accused was asking him to come at the earliest and the conversation between him and A-1 was also recorded in CBI Office. Handing Over Memo Ex.PW-4/B regarding proceedings that took place in CBI Office was claimed to have been prepared and witness identified his signature on the same. He also identified his signature on the FIR Ex.PW-4/C. It was claimed that thereafter CBI team proceeded to ITO where he went upstairs to Chamber of A-2 alongwith the male Officer of Punjab & Sindh Bank while other team members took position at different places. He claimed that A-2 was not present in his Chamber and while they were coming downstairs, he met A-1 who took him to one side. Witness claimed that A-1 asked and demanded the amount from him and accordingly he paid A-1 tainted money of Rs.23,000/- which he accepted in his right hand and kept in his right side pocket. Witness claimed that CC No. 43/2008 Page7 of 44 he requested A-1 to allow him to talk to A-2 for confirmation and meanwhile as A-2 was coming upstairs he (witness) told him about having paid the amount to A-1. He further stated that he asked the accused persons that his refund should be expedited, he should not be harassed in the next assessment year also. He claimed that A-2 told him that he would not promise for the next assessment year but the present refund was ensured by the ensuing Friday, he claimed that thereafter A-1 & A-2 went to cabin of A-2 and he and the shadow witness were also with them. It was claimed that on giving of signal by the shadow witness, CBI team came there and apprehended A-1 from his wrists. Tainted amount of Rs. 23,000/- was claimed to have been taken out by some one in CBI team from pocket of pant of A-1. The same reportedly tallied with the numbers mentioned in the Handing Over Memo. Witness further stated about right hand wash and pant pocket wash of A-1 having been taken. He also claimed having returned the Digital Recorder to the CBI team. All the proceedings were claimed to have been recorded in Recovery memo Ex.PW-4/D. Arrest cum Personal Search Memo of A-1 & A-2 were proved as Ex.PW-4/E & F. The Income Tax Return alongwith Annexures was identified as Ex.PW-4/G. Witness identified his signatures on all the documents. After going through the Memo Ex.PW-4/B, witness claimed that name of the independent witnesses were Mr. Kanwar Ashok and Smt. Sukarma Anand. He also identified the currency CC No. 43/2008 Page8 of 44 notes as Ex.P-1/1 to 31. When the cassettes were played in the Court, witness identified his voice therein and also of the other accused persons. He pointed out the relevant portions thereof in the Transcripts Ex.PW-4/H, Ex.PW-9/5 & 6.
During course of cross-examination, witness could not tell the assessment year in respect of which he had filed the Income Tax Return in this case. He claimed that the Return was filed by him in Ward No. 26(4) and was filled up by him. He did not remember the Ward number in which he had filed his Returns for the two previous years or the next year. He claimed that at the time of filing the Income Tax Return, the concerned Receiving Clerk checks and verifies the correctness of the Ward number. He claimed that he did not know if Ex.PW-4/G was to be filed and assessed in Ward No. 26(1). He placed on record copies of his Income Tax Returns for period 2001 to 2008 as Ex.PW-4/DA-1 to 7. He claimed that accounts are also audited by an Auditor and Audit Report filed alongwith the Returns. He claimed that Income Tax Return for the assessment year 2001-02 was filed by him in Ward / Office Circle 8/10 ; for the assessment year 2002-03 in Ward / Office Circle 48(4) ; for the assessment year 2003-04 in Ward / Office Circle 26(1) ; for the assessment year 2004-05 and 2005-06 in Ward / Office Circle 26(4) ; for the assessment year 2006-07 and 2007-08 in Ward / Office Circle 26(1). Witness claimed that till the year 2000, he was a Bank employee whereafter he became a CC No. 43/2008 Page9 of 44 Pensioner and then started his business. He further claimed having shifted his residence in July, 2004. He claimed that although during the assessment years 2003-04, 2004-05 and thereafter, there was no change in his residential address, he claimed there were changes in his Income pattern. He admitted that his Return for the assessment year 2005-06 was filed in Circle No. 26(1). He admitted that he had received refund for assessment year 2003-04 & 2005-06 from Ward No. 26(1). He claimed that he had working knowledge of Income Tax but was not aware about provisions of Income Tax Act. Witness admitted that as mentioned in Ex.PW-4/DA-9, he had transferred 97.03% share of his income to his wife for showing her income for Income Tax purposes and had only retained 3.97% share of his entire income. He admitted that no share was traded by him in the name of his wife who had not dealt with any share trading. To a question if he had deposited the advance tax by way of speculation for earning interest or had paid as per income already earned by him, the witness replied that there was not speculation involved therein and that he had deposited the advance tax on 15.12.2003 to be on the safe side. He claimed that he did not remember the Ward number mentioned in his PAN Card. He could neither admit nor affirm if Ward No. 26(1) was mentioned in his PAN Card. Witness admitted that the words "Ward No. 26(1) PAN Migration" were mentioned in red colour on top of Ex.PW-4/G. He claimed that CC No. 43/2008 Page10 of 44 he had worked in Bank for about 22 years and during that period he had only been called by CBI to become a witness in one case and that the said requisition was through Competent Authority. He claimed that on the day of raid, till apprehension of A-1 and obtaining of washes, he had remained present at the spot and was coming and going only thereafter. He claimed that he did not remember if two other employees of Income Tax Department were also present while trap proceedings were taking place. He claimed that demand of bribe was simultaneously made by both the accused persons. He admitted that he did not file the complaint on 20.06.2005 despite the demand having been made on that day. He claimed having recorded the conversation of 20.06.2005 for the purpose of convincing CBI Officers. He claimed that he did not remember if any Seizure Memo regarding the said conversation cassette was prepared or not. He did not remember if CBI Officer had made any endorsement on the said cassette or had obtained his signatures. He claimed that the said conversation was not recorded at instance of CBI. He further claimed that refunds in respect of previous and subsequent years came to him of their own without payment of any bribe and without any persuasion. He claimed that he was not aware about Income Tax Rules to the effect that Income Tax Returns are made 1.5 to 2 years after filing the Income Tax Refund. He claimed that refund for the assessment year 2003-04 was received on 05.10.2004 and CC No. 43/2008 Page11 of 44 for the assessment year 2005-06 was received in April, 2006. He could neither admit nor deny that he had always received refunds after passing of one year or more years. He denied the suggestion that the Return Ex.PW-4/G was fraudulently filed by him or was filed against advice of C.A. Shri A.K. Gupta. He denied the suggestion that documents annexed with Return had been forged by him. He further denied the suggestion that he had intentionally filed Ex.PW-4/G in a wrong Ward or that with a view to cover up his own misdeeds and to save himself in collusion with S.P. had got false case registered. He further denied the suggestion that he had been doing Share Trading for A-1 being his friend or that A-1 was to receive Rs.23,000/- as profit from him towards settlement of dues in respect of shares of M/s. Reliance Industries. He denied the suggestion that despite knowing that his Return Ex.PW-4/G was false, he still wanted to get it processed or had gone to A-1 in this regard who in turn told him that the Return pertained to Ward No. 26(1) and sent him there. He further denied the suggestion that A-1 had assured to help him being his friend or that he alongwith CBI Officers had destroyed / never seized the recording dated 20.06.2005 or that it was being intentionally withheld. He further denied the suggestion that while handing over profit of Rs.23,000/- pertaining to shares of M/s. Reliance Industries to A-1, he himself had falsely got A-1 implicated in the present case. Witness admitted that a demand notice of nearly 80 lacs had CC No. 43/2008 Page12 of 44 been issued by the Income Tax Department to his wife and he was agitated about the same. He denied the suggestion that with a view to teach a lesson to Income Tax Department, he got this false case registered. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
7 PW-5 Inspector Virender Singh from the Income Tax Department stated about nature of duties of a Senior Tax Assistant.
During course of cross-examination, witness claimed that in case of Returns wherein refund is claimed, the same are put up before Income Tax Officer who examines the same and gives his markings thereof. He claimed that Senior Tax Assistant actually makes various calculations on a separate piece of paper. As regards Ex.PW-4/G, witness claimed that Return had been received in Ward No. 26(4) and that A-1 was posted in Ward No. 26(4) at the relevant time. 8 PW-6 Smt. S. Narasamma also deposed about duties of Senior Tax Assistant and also of Income Tax Officer. She claimed that entry in respect of Ex.PW-4/G was made in the Inward Register vide entry at Srl. No. 2640130084. Certified copy of the Register in that regard was proved as Ex.PW-6/1 and the relevant entry pointed out as Point 'B'. She further claimed that jurisdiction of Vikas Puri was Ward No. 26(4).
During course of cross-examination, witness admitted that for determining jurisdiction there is a jurisdiction CC No. 43/2008 Page13 of 44 order issued by Chief Commissioner and Commissioner. She further claimed that she had not seen the Return Ex.PW-4/G or the jurisdiction order when her statement was recorded by CBI. She re-asserted that area Vikas Puri falls in Ward No. 26(4). She denied the suggestion regarding having made the statement without verifying the records.
9 PW-7 Shri Neeraj Sirohi was dropped by Ld. PP on 21.10.2009. Subsequently, application was filed by Ld. PP U/s. 311 Cr.P.C. seeking recalling and examination of this witness and the same was allowed vide order dated 29.02.2012 passed by the Court.
During course of examination, witness claimed that as on 21.06.2005 he was posted in Ward No. 26(3) while H.K. Nahar was posted in Ward No. 26(4) but both of them shared the same room in the office although there was a partition in between their seats. He further claimed that accused M.D. Gupta was then posted as Assistant with H.K. Nahar. Witness identified his signature on document Ex.PW-9/8. He claimed that it was in June, 2005 that a search was conducted in this room towards the side of Shri Nahar by CBI and at that time he was shuttling on both sides of the partition. He claimed that proceedings mentioned in document Ex.PW-9/8 took place on other side of the partition and not in his presence.
After seeking permission from the Court, witness was cross-examined by ld. PP for CBI and during course of CC No. 43/2008 Page14 of 44 his such cross-examination, witness claimed that document Ex.PW-9/8 was not written in his presence and that he had only signed it at instance of CBI Officers. He admitted that copy of Ex.PW-9/8 was given to him by CBI Officers on 21.06.2005 itself and he made endorsement in his regard at point 'N' on the document. He admitted having read the said copy. He further claimed that as his signature had not been forcibly obtained by CBI Officers on this document, he did not lodged any complaint with his Senior Officers in this regard. He claimed that as he was not aware, he could not say if the files mentioned in the document had been recovered or seized by CBI Officers, but admitted that after reading copy of Ex.PW-9/8, he came to know about the place searched and the documents seized. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that he had been called by CBI in its Office and his statement recorded. He volunteered that he had only been asked about nature and duties of Tax Assistant and Income Tax Officers. He further claimed that a Transfer Memo is prepared in case Income Tax Return filed in a particular Ward is to be sent to another Ward. He claimed that he had never dealt with the Return Ex.PW-4/G. 10 PW-8 Shri Kartar Singh identified the entry at point 'B' in Ex.PW-6/1 as being in his handwriting.
11 PW-9 Shri Kanwar Ashok was the shadow witness
CC No. 43/2008 Page15 of 44
who had accompanied the complainant during the trap proceedings. During course of his examination-in-chief, witness reiterated allegations of prosecution against the accused. He identified his signatures on documents and the case property.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness admitted having heard the cassette Q-1 wherein one person was demanding money and directed Shri U.S. Mishra to come to ITO during lunch hours and to pay Rs.23,000/-. He claimed that the said cassette Q-1 which was played at CBI Office had only the said contents. He could not say if particulars of the present case including name of the complainant were mentioned on the cassette Q-1 which was sealed in the Office. He identified the said cassette as Ex.P-46 and claimed that the words "Telephonic Conversation at CBI Office" written on Ex.P-46 had actually been written at that time only i.e. in CBI office. He claimed that he did not know if at the time of recording of conversation at the spot, the recording instrument kept in pocket of Shri U.S. Mishra was 'On' or 'Off'. He claimed that the spot conversation was played before them and then sealed. He claimed that in his presence CBI Officers did not call any Security Guard / Officer to join the trap proceedings. However, he claimed that at the time of recovery two persons of Income Tax Department were present but he did not know whether or not they were joined as recovery witnesses. He claimed that CBI did not send any CC No. 43/2008 Page16 of 44 requisition to the Vigilance Cell to witness the trap proceedings. He denied the suggestion that no proceedings were conducted in the Income Tax Department or that entire written work took place in CBI Office. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely at instance of CBI Officer. He could not tell the make or number of the telephone from which Shri U.S. Mishra had spoken to the accused. 12 PW-10 Shri S.N. Rai identified his signature on letter Ex.PW-10/1 in respect of telephone No. 23370753. He claimed that billing print out in respect of telephone No. 23370753 as well as 23379556 had been forwarded alongwith the said letter.
13 PW-11 Smt. Sukarma Anand was the other independent witness who had joined the trap team. During course of her examination-in-chief she reiterated allegations of prosecution as alleged against the accused. She also identified her signatures on the documents and the case property.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, she admitted having heard conversation recorded in cassette Q-1 wherein one person who was demanding money had directed Shri U.S. Mishra to come to ITO during lunch hours and to pay Rs.23,000/-. She claimed that the cassette Q-1 played at CBI Office had only the said contents and was thereafter sealed. She claimed that she alongwith CBI team including the complainant had gone to CC No. 43/2008 Page17 of 44 Income Tax Office and the complainant had been provided a recording instrument. She claimed that the spot conversation was played before them and then sealed. She claimed that CBI Officers had not called any Security Guard / Officer to join the trap proceedings in her presence. She claimed ignorance about existence of a Vigilance Cell in the Income Tax Department. She denied the suggestion that she had deposed falsely at instance of CBI Officer. She could not tell the make or the number of the telephone from which Shri U.S. Mishra had spoken to the accused. She could not say how the conversation was being recorded.
14 PW-12 Shri Kedar Manjhi identified his signature on the Receipt Memo Ex.PW-12/1 vide which Service Book and Personal File of accused M.D. Gupta alongwith attested copy of Attendance Register and Receipt Register were handed over to CBI Inspector on 17.01.2006. 15 PW-13 Shri Deepak Kanda was the Nodal Officer in M/s. Bharti Airtel and claimed that he could not identify signature of the Nodal Officer appearing on letter dated 03.04.2006 alongwith call details of Mobile No. 9818234224. Examination-in-chief of the witness was then deferred on 09.08.2010 and the witness again appeared for further examination-in-chief on 18.09.2010 wherein he identified signature of the previous Nodal Officer as being of Captain R. Bakshi. The letter and the call details were proved as Ex. PW-13/1 & 2 respectively. He claimed that call details Ex.
CC No. 43/2008 Page18 of 44 PW-13/2 was a computer generated record maintained by the Company in due course of business.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that he had not tried to retrieve the call details or verify the same as the same were already available in Court record and were computer generated. He claimed that he had no personal knowledge about facts contained in Ex.PW-13/1 & 2. He claimed that before coming to the Court, he had not checked the Office record. He denied the suggestion regarding having deposed because of fear of CBI.
16 PW-14 Shri P. Nath proved his CFSL Report Ex.PW-14/1 in respect of the washes and claimed that both the washes gave positive tests for presence of Phenolphthalein Powder and Sodium Carbonate. 17 PW-15 Inspector Brijesh Kumar was the Trap Laying Officer (TLO). During course of his examination-in- chief, he stated about this matter being marked to him by the S.P. and regarding his verification of genuineness of the complaint from his sources. He further stated about constitution of the trap team, pre trap proceedings, the trap laid as well as post trap proceedings regarding arrest of the accused. Witness identified his signatures on the documents. He also claimed having sent the washes as well as the cassette for comparison to CFSL.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel CC No. 43/2008 Page19 of 44 for accused witness claimed that the complainant had met him for the first time on 21.06.2005 and that alongwith complainant had also produced a cassette the said cassette was not seized by him at that moment and no Seizure Memo was prepared regarding seizure of the said cassette as factum of seizure was mentioned in the Handing Over Memo. He claimed having heard the conversation in the cassette which was between parties alongwith a demand. He claimed that he did not prepare any transcript of the same. To a specific question he claimed that demand made by Shri M.D. Gupta (A-1) was of Rs.25,000/- and not Rs.23,000/-. He further stated that Transcript Q-1 Ex.PW-4/H was transcript of cassette heard by him on 21.06.2005. At that stage, ld. Counsel for accused requested that the witness be permitted to read the transcript and point out the place where demand of money by accused M.D. Gupta (A-1) was reflected. After going through the transcript Ex.PW-4/H, witness submitted that as names of the respective speakers were not mentioned in detail on each and every page of the Transcript, he was unable to point out the required portion. He further claimed having verified genuineness of the complaint through his sources and through examination of the complainant. He claimed that this fact was not reduced into writing as information received from sources is not reduced into writing. He claimed to have orally examined the complainant. Witness further stated that he had not asked the complainant to show CC No. 43/2008 Page20 of 44 him his Income Tax Return which was the basis of his complaint. He further admitted that no Tax Consultants are present in CBI Office and that during course of investigation information / guidance is sought from Expert in the field about which Investigating Officers have little knowledge. He further admitted that in this case he did not call for any comments from the Income Tax Department after securing documents from the complainant. He further stated that no alteration was made in the cassette produced by the complainant. He further admitted that during course of investigation it transpired that accused was posted in Ward No. 26(4). Witness claimed that as he did not remember, he could not say as to what documents were recovered from accused at the time of his arrest. He further claimed that details thereof were mentioned in the Arrest cum Personal Search Memo Ex.PW-4/E. Document Ex.PW-4/G, it was claimed, was not recovered during personal search of the accused but had been seized during course of investigation. Witness claimed that no alteration was made in the said document by him after its seizure. He claimed that as long as the investigation had remained with him, document Ex.PW-4/G was not requisitioned by the Income Tax Department nor had it been sent by him to the IT Department. He could not say whether or not the words "Ward 26(1) PAN Migration" as mentioned on top of Ex.PW-4/G were there when the document was seized by him. He claimed that he had not seen it ever-since the day CC No. 43/2008 Page21 of 44 he had seized it and had not verified contents of the document. He however admitted that there appeared some white colour liquid type substance used on the left corner of the said document. Witness denied the suggestion that the said fluid was applied by him while the investigation was with him in order to make a false case against the accused. He claimed that as long as investigation had remained with him, he did not examine any Officer of the Income Tax Department Ward No. 26(1) to ascertain whether or not they had handled the Return. He further claimed that during course of his investigation, he did not make any attempt to ascertain as to in which Ward Return in question was to be filed. He claimed that he did not do so as he was only a TLO. Witness further admitted that neither the complainant had mentioned to him about nature of his business nor did he ask about it from the complainant. He denied the suggestion that during course of his investigation, it came to his knowledge that the complainant had to make some payment to accused M.D. Gupta (A-1) towards settlement of some shares of Reliance Company or that he was deposing falsely in that regard. Witness claimed that he did not remember the room number of the Office which had been searched and from where documents were seized. After seeing the document Ex.PW-9/8, witness submitted that the room searched was 'F-4' in Ward No. 26(4) and that it was not exclusively of the accused M.D. Gupta. He claimed that he did not make any CC No. 43/2008 Page22 of 44 enquiry about other occupants of the room. He denied the suggestion that he had intentionally not done so to falsely implicate the accused M.D. Gupta. He claimed that he had not read the documents seized vide Ex.PW-9/8 and could not give any reason for the same. He denied the suggestion that Shri R.C. Garwan was the TLO in this case. He claimed that no one from the Vigilance or Security Department of the ITO was called upon to join the proceedings. He further stated that no specific permission was taken from any Sr. Officer of the Income Tax Department at the time of seizure of the files. Witness denied the suggestion that on perusal of the seized documents it was apparent that the complainant was trying to transfer his income derived from sale of shares to that of his wife. Witness claimed that he had not checked the Income Tax Return of wife of the complainant. He further denied the suggestion that after the accused was apprehended, he claimed that the amount had been paid to him by the complainant towards settlement of Reliance. He further denied the suggestion that as the complainant wanted to get his Income Tax Returns and that of his family members cleared from the Income Tax Department, he in connivance with S.P. Alok Niranjan had falsely implicated the accused in this case or that other CBI officials acted under directions of the S.P. in this regard. He further denied the suggestion that fluid was used by him on left top portion of Ex.PW-4/G to hide the fact that the Return had been selected for scrutiny. He CC No. 43/2008 Page23 of 44 further denied the suggestion that it had come to his knowledge that the Return Ex.PW-4/G related to Ward No. 26(1) or was being processed there only or that accused M.D. Gupta was not concerned at all in any manner with the said Return. He further denied the suggestion that on hearing the cassette produced by complainant, it became apparent that no demand of Rs.23,000/- had been made by accused M.D. Gupta or that it was complainant who was making payment towards settlement of Reliance. Witness admitted that signature of the accused did not appear on the Seizure Memo Ex.PW-9/8. He further denied the suggestion that the words "From Office Table Drawer of M.D. Gupta aforesaid"
mentioned in Ex.PW-9/8 had be so written by him of his own without making any enquiry if the said table drawer was of the accused. He further denied the suggestion that on bare perusal of the Return Ex.PW-4/G and the supportive documents it was apparent to him that a false story of refund had been made up by the complainant. He further denied the suggestion that he knew before hand that there was no demand made by accused M.D. Gupta or that he had not accepted any bribe amount. He further denied the suggestion that the cassettes had been tampered with by him to make out a false case against the accused.
18 PW-16 Inspector A. Sathiamoorthy was the Investigating Officer who took over investigation of the case from the TLO. He claimed having recorded statements of CC No. 43/2008 Page24 of 44 witnesses about having collected call details, having got prepared the Transcript and having collected CFSL Reports. He also claimed having obtained sanction for prosecution of the accused persons.
During course of cross-examination by ld. Counsel for the accused, witness claimed that investigation was transferred to him on 04.07.2005. He claimed that the white fluid on Ex.PW-4/G had not been applied by him. He denied having purposely not investigated the case on the aspect of Reliance Share dealing between the parties. He further denied the suggestion that during course of investigation accused had informed him that the complainant traded in shares or had business dealings with him. He further denied the suggestion that he learnt from the accused that money accepted by him was settlement amount towards Reliance Shares. He denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely.
19 No other witness was examined by the prosecution. Statement of accused was recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he claimed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case by interested witnesses who had deposed falsely. He claimed that he knew father of the complainant since 1970 as he was a student under father of the complainant. He claimed that they were on visiting terms at each other's house and that he used to help the CC No. 43/2008 Page25 of 44 complainant, his wife & his father by guiding them in respect of Income Tax problems. He further claimed that a demand of tax arrears of Rs.80.00 lacs was raised against wife of the complainant and when complainant met him in that regard, he duly advised the complainant. He further claimed that on asking of the complainant he started dealing in Shares alongwith the complainant. He further claimed that on 21.06.2005, the complainant telephonically claimed that his Rs.23,000/- in respect of Reliance settlement was lying with him (complainant) who would be coming to his Office to give the money at about 1.00 P.M. Accused claimed that accordingly the complainant came to him and gave him the money i.e. Rs.23,000/- which was not bribe amount. He further claimed that he had never dealt with the Income Tax Return of the complainant or his wife.
20 The accused examined Shri Ashish Mohanty as DW-1. The witness identified his signature on RTI reply dated 07.05.2008 (Ex.DW-1/A) which was claimed to have been made in pursuance to RTI application moved by M.D. Gupta (A-1).
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness claimed that details of Income Tax Return of an assesseee can be provided to a third party. He claimed that he was not aware of any specific provision of the Income Tax Act under which details of Income Tax Return of an assessee could not be disclosed to a third person. He claimed that the CC No. 43/2008 Page26 of 44 information furnished vide Ex.DW-1/A was so furnished by him after verification from records of the Department and that he had no personal knowledge in respect of the case. He denied the suggestion that he was not the custodian of the relevant record of Ward No. 26(4) or 26(1) in respect of which information contained in Ex.DW-1//A was furnished. He claimed that he had dealt with Income Tax Return of Shri Uday Shanker Mishra for the assessment year 2006-07 and as such all records of his Income Tax Return of previous years had been transferred to him and he became custodian thereof.
21 Shri Narender Kumar Verma proved letter dated 27.08.2012 issued by the Officiating Principal of PGDAV Evening College. The same was proved as Ex.DW-2/A. Copies of Marksheets submitted by Shri Mohan Das Gupta attached to the said letter were Mark D-2/X-1 & X-2.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness claimed that he did not know father's name of Mohan Das Gupta whose name found mention in the letter Ex.DW-2/A. 22 DW-3 Shri Vinod Kumar claimed to be son-in-law of the accused. He claimed that he also knew Shri Uday Shanker Mishra having met him in house of the accused on 5
- 7 occasions. Witness claimed that his father-in-law and Shri U.S. Mishra used to talk about some share dealings and about money dealings. He further claimed that exchange of CC No. 43/2008 Page27 of 44 money had also taken place in his presence.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness claimed that he had knowledge about the present case but could not say if his father-in-law had been caught red handed by CBI while taking bribe. He knew that present case against his father-in-law was regarding his having taken bribe. He further claimed that the factum of the complainant having financial dealings with his father-in-law was sought to be deposed to by him before CBI Officers but they refused to listen to him. He could not tell name or rank of the said Officer and admitted that he had not made any complaint in that regard before Superior Officers of CBI or the Court. He could not tell name of the Companies regarding which share transaction took place between his father-in-law and the complainant. He could not say in whose name the shares used to be purchased. He claimed that he had never seen Shri Mishra handing over or receiving any share from his father-in-law and had never seen his father-in-law instructing Shri Mishra to purchase or sell off any particular share. He could not say if he had ever seen any Account Book being maintained by his father-in-law in connection with the share dealings. Witness claimed that he had no knowledge about complete financial dealings of his father-in-law nor he had any idea about his financial capital or investments. 23 DW-4 produced on record letter dated 01.10.2012 from Controller of Examinations, University of Delhi. The letter CC No. 43/2008 Page28 of 44 was proved as Ex.DW-4/1.
During course of cross-examination by ld. PP for CBI, witness admitted that name of father of Mohan Das Gupta or his address were not mentioned in Ex.DW-4/1 and the attached record.
24 No other witness was examined in this case and arguments advanced by both sides were been heard. 25 During course of his submission it was submitted by Ld. PP that as the accused has admitted receipt of the tainted amount of Rs.23,000/- and recovery thereof from his possession, not much is required to be stated about proceedings conducted by the Trap Team during pre-trap stage or the post trap proceedings. Ld. PP however took this court through the testimony of the complainant PW-4 and submitted that he had supported case of the prosecution in totality and that his unshaken testimony duly proved the fact that the accused alongwith co-accused (since deceased) had demanded money from the complainant for processing his Income-tax return to benefit of the complainant for granting refund to him. It was pointed out that the Income-tax return had been filed by the complainant in Ward 26 (4) where the accused was posted and as such was in control of processing of the Return. It was further pointed out that a vain attempt was made by the accused to claim that the amount handed over to him by the complainant was towards settlement of shares of Reliance Company. As per Ld. PP the recorded CC No. 43/2008 Page29 of 44 conversation as heard in court and the transcript made it clear that there was no conversation whatsoever between the complainant and the accused regarding the complainant handing over any share related payment to the accused. It was submitted that the entire conversation revolved around "refund" and not "Reliance". It was further submitted that as there was no material contradiction in testimonies of the witnesses, the accused was liable to be convicted for the offences charged with.
During course of his submission Ld PP placed reliance on 1986 Cr.LJ 1101 (Ramesh Vs. State) and also M.B. Joshi Vs State (AIR 2001 SC 147).
26 Rebutting, it was submitted by Ld counsel for the accused that the complainant in this case was aggrieved from the Income-tax Department as the Department had raised claim of about Rs.80 Lacs on wife of the complainant. It was pointed out that the accused was known to the complainant since long, as accused had been a student under father of the complainant, and used to guide the complainant and his father in respect of Income-tax matters. It was further submitted that the complainant dealt with share business and the accused was dealing in shares through him. As per Ld. Counsel there had been some settlement in respect of shares of Reliance Industries and payment of Rs.23,000/- received by the accused from the complainant was in that regard. Ld. Counsel submitted that as the complainant was aggrieved with CC No. 43/2008 Page30 of 44 Income-tax Department, he chose the accused as a scape goat to settle his disputes with the Department as the accused being known to the complainant was a soft target. While referring to testimony of complainant, it was submitted that as per the complainant, demand was made by the accused on 13.6.2005 but the complainant admittedly kept quite till 20.6.2005. As per Ld. Counsel, the complainant was to file his Income-tax return in Ward 26(1) but deliberately chose to file it in Ward 26 (4) where the accused was posted. It was claimed that it was so done to falsely implicate the accused. Ld. Counsel summed up his arguments by submitting that there was no demand made by the accused as the work to be done i.e. issuance of refund order was not within reach and power of the accused. It was submitted that no evidence was led on record to show that any Income-tax refund was actually made out to be paid to the complainant. It was further submitted that the Income-tax return, as per evidence adduced was not recovered from possession of or from the table drawer of the accused. It was further submitted that as per allegation, the accused had asked for the bribe amount in presence of Shri Ashok Gupta, Chartered Accountant of the complainant and despite his being a material witness, Shri Ashok Gupta was not examined by the prosecution. It was prayed that as the accused had been falsely implicated, he deserved to be acquitted.
27 In his reply arguments, it was submitted by ld. PP
CC No. 43/2008 Page31 of 44
that nothing was brought on record by the accused even to probablise his defence and further submitted that no plausible explanation had been put forward by the accused as to why the complainant would get him falsely implicated in this case merely because the complainant had a grudge against the Income Tax Department.
28 This Court has given thoughtful consideration to arguments advanced and has also perused the record. 29 Acceptance of tainted amount of Rs.23,000/- has been admitted by the accused and recovery of the said amount is also not in dispute. That being the position, formalities observed during pre-trap proceedings like treating the currency notes with Phenolphthalein Powder or the demonstration given in CBI Office and other formalities of trap need not be gone into by this Court.
30 One of the line of argument advanced by Ld. Counsel for accused was to the effect that the accused was posted in Ward No. 26(4) while the complainant was supposed to file his Return in Ward No. 26(1). It was sought to be submitted that the accused was not in a position to show any favour to the complainant by expediting his Income Tax Refund order. This, it was submitted excluded the possibility of the complainant paying any bribe to the accused. In Ramesh Vs. State (1986 Crl. L. J. 1101), it was observed that it was not necessary that the public servant must infact be in a position to do the official act, favour or service at the time CC No. 43/2008 Page32 of 44 of the demand or receipt of the gratification. It had also been observed in Gopal Singh Vs. CBI (ILR (2005) II Delhi page
35) that a public servant may receive illegal gratification by misleading even his victim to believe that he is in a position to show favour. It was further observed that presumption U/s. 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act arises as soon as money, which is not legal remuneration, is received by a public servant and shifts the burden upon accused to show that the amount received by him was not illegal gratification. While passing the judgment, Hon'ble Justice Shri R.C. Chopra further observed that in case under Prevention of Corruption Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded.
31 Even otherwise, it is apparent from facts and circumstances of the case that the Income Tax Return filed by the complainant was pending in Ward No. 26(4) at the time of present incident and came to be transferred to Ward No. 26(1) subsequently i.e. on 06.12.2005. During the relevant period, accused was also posted in Ward 26(4). The said facts are evident from the Return (D-15) and the connected document (D-16).
32 It had been observed in Ramesh Vs. State (Supra) that in order to raise the presumption against the accused person U/s. 4|(1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, what the prosecution has to prove is that the accused had CC No. 43/2008 Page33 of 44 received a gratification and that amount received was not legal remuneration. It was further observed that once the presumption is drawn, it is for the accused to prove that the gratification received by him was not illegal or meant as a motive or reward for any favour shown to the bribe giver. It was observed that the words "unless the contrary is proved"
mean that the presumption raised has to be rebutted by proof and not by some explanation which might be merely plausible. It had been observed in V.S. Jhingan Vs. Chatur Das (1966 Crl. L.J. 1357) (SC) that the burden which rests on the accused to displace the presumption is to be discharged by bringing on record evidence - circumstantial or direct, which establishes that reasonable probability that the money was accepted by the accused other than as a motive or reward.
33 Coming back to facts of the case, what was pleaded by the accused was that the amount of Rs.23,000/- received by him from the complainant was infact payment due to him from the complainant regarding settlement of shares of Reliance Company. This has been the consistent stand of the accused which he took while giving suggestions to prosecution witnesses and also so stated in his statement recorded U/s. 313 Cr.P.C.
34 During course of his defence evidence, accused had examined as many as 4 witnesses, but not a single witness was examined by him in line with his suggestions or the defence mentioned hereinabove. The accused could very CC No. 43/2008 Page34 of 44 well have probablised his defence by bringing on record the fact that he or any of his family members had shares of Reliance Company which he had sold sometime prior to the date of present incident or that in view of said sale transaction, the complainant was to pay him sum of Rs. 23,000/- or some other amount. Nothing to this effect apparently has been brought on record by the accused. 35 A perusal of the Transcripts and hearing the recorded conversations also reveals that there is nothing on record to show that the accused had sold any shares through the complainant or had any dealings in respect of shares with the complainant. No doubt, there is some reference to "settlement of Reliance" during course of conversation, but apparently the same does not even probablise the defence sought to be made out by the accused.
36 In that view of matter, the accused has been unable to discharge the onus that was shifted upon him and had failed to rebutt the presumption by any plausible explanation what to say about proof. This Court has failed to appreciate the reason put forward by the accused as regards his false implication at hand of the complainant. The accused wants this Court to believe that he had cordial relations with the complainant and his father claiming that the accused was a student under father of the complainant and used to advise family of complainant regarding Income Tax matters. What the accused wants this Court to believe is that as the Income Tax CC No. 43/2008 Page35 of 44 Department had raised the demand of Rs.80.00 lacs towards Tax arrears upon wife of the complainant, the complainant was disgruntled and in order to seek revenge from the Income Tax Department made the accused as scape goat as the accused was easy prey being known to the complainant. If what is being claimed by the accused is correct that demand of Rs.80.00 lacs had been made by the Department from wife of complainant towards Tax arrears, in considered opinion of this Court, the grudge of the complainant would have been towards the Officers dealing with case of wife of the complainant. The complainant surely would not point his gun towards the accused so as to falsely implicate him in this case knowingfully well (as the accused wants us to believe) that accused used to help him regularly in the past with the Tax matters. Any prudent man would approach his Saviour rather than get him falsely implicated in a case. It would not be out of place to mention herein that by falsely implicating the accused in this case (as is being claimed by the accused), the complainant would not have got a set off in respect of the Income Tax liabilities raised on his wife. Rather, as was being claimed by the accused, the accused might have been able to help the complainant to wriggle out of the situation. It is unthinkable that the complainant under these circumstances would have falsely implicate the accused in this matter. A pedantic approach rejecting the evidence of a complainant simply on the premise that he was aggrieved against the bribe CC No. 43/2008 Page36 of 44 taker would only help corrupt officials getting insulated from legal consequences.
37 During course of his submissions, it had also been submitted by ld. Counsel for the accused that wife of the complainant or his Chartered Accountant Ashok Gupta had not been examined in this case. It was claimed that they were material witnesses and non-examination of these material witnesses weakened the case of the prosecution. In considered opinion of this Court, it is not necessary to examine each and every witness connected to the matter during course of trial. There is no prescribed number of witnesses who ought to be examined in a case and testimony of a single witness, if accepted and believed, is sufficient to decide the matter. Prosecution is not supposed to examine each witness cited, but a material witness who is required to be examined, must be examined, and when a witness is not to lead evidence which can be said to be duplicative in nature and the witness is competent to state certain additional relevant facts, only then non-examination of such witnesses by prosecution makes its case infirm. It is always open for the prosecution to restrict the number of witnesses cited or examined by it.
38 In the present case, as already mentioned hereinabove, acceptance of the tainted amount and recovery thereof is not disputed by the accused. In that view of matter, non-examination of wife of the complainant or the Chartered CC No. 43/2008 Page37 of 44 Accountant Shri Ashok Gupta, in opinion of this Court would be of no consequence.
39 This Court is well aware of the fact that in a recent pronouncement Mukut Bihari Vs. State (Crl. Appeal 870 of 2012), it had been observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that demand of illegal gratification is sinequanon for constituting an offence under Prevention of Corruption Act and that mere recovery of tainted money is not sufficient to effect the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable unless there is evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show that the money was taken voluntarily as bribe. It was further observed that while invoking the provisions of Section 20 of the Act, the Court is required to consider the explanation offered by the accused, only on the touch stone of preponderance of probability and not on the touch stone of proof beyond all reasonable doubts. However, as already discussed hereinabove, facts of the present case are on a different pedestal. In this case, nothing exists to doubt the substantive evidence of the complainant and the accused has failed even to probablise his defence. Only a bald explanation has been given by the accused regarding the complainant paying him money towards Reliance settlement, but this explanation by itself is neither sufficient nor plausible in absence of any defence evidence whatsoever having been led in this regard by the accused. It may be reiterated that sufficient opportunity had been granted to the accused to lead CC No. 43/2008 Page38 of 44 his defence and the accused infact has examined 4 witnesses in his defence.
40 However, none of the DW examined stated anything in line with defence sought to be put forward by the accused.
41 Perusal of the recorded conversation and the Transcript belies the probable defence sought to be taken by the accused. The conversation makes it clear that after handing over the amount of Rs.23,000/- to the accused, the complainant is asking for a reconfirmation from Mr. Nahar regarding receipt of his refund.(same appears in Transcript of Q-2 i.e. Ex.PW-9/6 and also discloses nexus between the accused M.D. Gupta and co-accused Nahar (since deceased). This would surely not have been the case in case the payment made by the complainant, as is being claimed by the accused, was for settlement of Reliance and not for refund. Apparently a false defence is sought to be taken up by the accused and he has miserably failed in that regard. 42 Upon consideration of all the facts and circumstances of the case enumerated hereinabove, this Court is of considered opinion that prosecution has succeeded to prove its case to the hilt against the accused M.D. Gupta. It may be reiterated that the accused has failed even to probablise is defence. As such, this court is of considered opinion that the accused deserves to be convicted in this case and he is accordingly convicted for having CC No. 43/2008 Page39 of 44 committed offences punishable U/S 120-B IPC r/w Section 7, 13(1) (d) punishable U/s. 13(2) of PC Act and also the substantive offences punishable U/S 7 of the PC Act and offence U/s. 13(1) (d) punishable U/S 13(2) of PC Act for which he had been charged with in the present trial.
Announced in the open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 21.01.2013 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 43/2008 Page40 of 44
IN THE COURT OF SH. M.R. SETHI:
SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, (PC ACT) CBI: DELHI.
CC NO. 43/2008
ID No. 02401R0905142006
CBI
Versus
Mohan Das Gupta
ORDER ON SENTENCE:
This Court has heard ld. Counsel for the convict Mohan Das Gupta as also ld. PP for CBI on point of sentence.
It was submitted by ld. Counsel for the convict that convict has been facing trial in this case for the past about 8 years and is now aged 64 years. It was submitted that convict is an aged married man having a wife, two married daughters and a married son. It was further submitted that convict was a Heart patient. As per ld. Counsel, even if case of the prosecution is taken at its face value, the amount accepted by CC No. 43/2008 Page41 of 44 the convict was to be passed on to his official superior Shri H.K. Nahar and was not for exclusive use of the convict. It was further submitted that keeping in view age of the convict and as he had no other involvement in any such like matter, he be treated with lineancy.
Ld. PP for CBI on the other hand has submitted that the convict was posted in the Income Tax Department and he in conspiracy with his co-accused had lured the complainant to pay bribe of Rs.23,000/- in lieu of expediting the refund voucher to the complainant. It was further submitted that even as per case of the convict, the complainant was well-known to him and greed of the convict did not stop him from extracting money from his acquaintance. As per ld. PP, it can very well be imagined, as to what the convict would have done to others. In this regard, attention of this Court was also drawn towards Arrest cum Personal Search Memo of the convict which mentioned about recovery of cash Rs.14,000/- kept in a white envelope having been recovered during personal search of the convict. In reply to submission made by ld. Counsel for the convict, it was further submitted that since beginning, case of prosecution was to the effect that the two accuseds were in conspiracy with each other and that it was convict who had initially raised the demand, accepted the bribe money & it was from him that the bribe was recovered. It was submitted that the convict was not entitled to any lineancy while awarding punishment.
CC No. 43/2008 Page42 of 44 This Court has given thoughtful consideration to facts and circumstances of the case and also to the submissions made.
Punishment is designed to protect society by deterring potential offenders as also by preventing the guilty party from repeating the offence. Reformatory, deterrent and punitive aspects of punishment thus play their due part in judicial thinking while determining this question. In modern civilized societies, however, reformatory aspect is being given some what greater importance. Too lenient as well as too harsh sentences, both loose their efficaciousness. One does not deter and the other may frustrate thereby making the offender a hardened criminal. Offences committed by the white collared section of the society cannot be viewed lightly. Suppression of corruption is a matter of acute necessity when dark forces endeavour to institutionalise corruption itself.
The Parliament in its wisdom fixed minimum sentences of imprisonment for various offences under PC Act for giving deterrent impact on other public servants who are prone to corrupt deals. It was precisely this reason why sentence upto 7 years was fixed for offence punishable U/s. 13(2) with direction that even if the said period of imprisonment need not be given, the sentence shall not be less than the imprisonment for one year. Such a legislative CC No. 43/2008 Page43 of 44 insistence is reflection of Parliament's resolve to meet corruption cases with very strong hand and to give signals of deterrence as the most pivotal feature of sentencing of corrupt public servants.
In the facts and circumstances of present case, after weighing the considerations already mentioned hereinabove, this Court is of considered opinion that ends of justice would be met in case the convict is sentenced as under:-
a) For offence punishable U/s. 120 B IPC r/w Section 7, 13(1) (d) punishable U/s. 13 (2) of PC Act , the convict is sentenced to pay fine of Rs.10,000/- in default S.I. 2 months.
b) For offence punishable U/s. 7 PC Act, the convict is sentenced to RI 1 year alongwith fine of Rs.10,000/- in default S.I. 2 months.
c) For offence U/s. 13(1) (d) punishable U/s. 13(2) PC Act, the convict is sentenced to RI 2 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- in default S.I. 2 months.
The sentences of imprisonment to run
concurrently.
The convict is sentenced accordingly.
Announced in the open court (M.R. SETHI)
on 21.01.2013 SPECIAL JUDGE-IV, CBI (PC ACT)
TIS HAZARI COURTS, DELHI
CC No. 43/2008 Page44 of 44