Delhi District Court
State vs Om Parkash Etc on 16 April, 2010
State V/s Om Parkash etc
IN THE COURT OF SH. A. S. YADAV SPECIAL JUDGE : DELHI
C C No. 99/02
State V/s Om Parkash s/o Sh. Ram Prasad,
r/o F-32, Aruna Nagar, Civil Lines,
Delhi.
Trilok Singh s/o Late Sh. Khem Singh
r/o Plot No. 71, Janakpuri, Hari Nagar
Delhi.
F. I. R No. : 08/02
Under Section : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of Institution 16.12.2002
Judgment reserved on 13.4.2010
Judgment delivered on 15.4.2010
JUDGMENT
Accused Trilok Singh and Om Parkash were employed as UDC and LDC respectively in MCD and in February2002 they were posted in the Civil Line Zone. Complainant Pardeep Kumar was having a Paan Khokha in Nani Wala Bagh, Azadpur. On 27.2.2010 complainant Pardeep Kumar lodged a report with Anti Corruption Branch to the effect that on 24.2.2002 accused Om Parkash came to his shop and asked him to come to Civil Line office on 25.2.2002. On 25.2.2002 complainant along with his brother Sanjeev Kumar went to MCD office Civil Lines and there accused Om parkash introduced them to accused Trilok Singh and then Trilok Singh asked as to why he was running his shop there and told him to remove his khokha. Complainant told him that he was running the FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 1/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc khokha for the last 15/16 years and a case is also pending in the court of Sh. Brijesh Kumar. On that accused Trilok Singh told him that he does not recognize court and asked him to remove khokha. He pleaded with Trilok Singh and thereafter Trilok Singh asked him to speak to Om Parkash. Thereafter Om Parkash told him "Sa hab Panch Hazaar Mang Rahe Hai" and when he said that it would not be possible to arrange that much money he told him to give the money on 27.2.2002 by 1200 Noon. He wrote his complaint Ex. PW5/A before Raid Officer Insp. N. S. Minhas ( PW8 ) in presence of Panch witness S. K. Saxena ( PW11 ). 2 Prosecution case further is that complainant brought with him 20 GC note of Rs. 100/- and handed over the same to the Raid Officer Insp. N. S. Minhas. Raid Officer got sr number of that GC note checked through panch witness and recorded the sr number of GC note in the pre raid report Ex. PW5/B. The GC notes was treated with phenolphthalein powder and Raid Officer gave demonstration to the panch witness and complainant by asking the panch witness to touch his right hand with the treated GC note and thereafter the wash of right hand of panch witness was taken in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate and that solution turned pink. Raid Officer also instructed the panch witness to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation and after being satisfied that bribe has been accepted he should give signal by hurling his hand over his head twice. Complainant was also instructed to do the transaction in the presence of panch witness.
FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 2/18
State V/s Om Parkash etc 3 Prosecution case further is that thereafter raiding team left for New Delhi MCD Office Rajpur Road in a government vehicle and reached there at about 10.30 AM . Panch witness and complainant got down from the government vehicle and proceeded towards MCD Office whereas Insp. Ashok Kumar remained in government vehicle and rest of members of raiding team followed complainant and panch witness. After 45 minutes complainant and panch witness came out from the office and informed Raid Officer that Om Parkash and Trilok Singh had gone to the residence of MLC . They were again sent to office of MCD and Raid Officer again took his position along with members of raiding team at 2nd floor of the building near room no. 209. They again came out after some time and informed Raid Officer that both these persons have not turned up and there is no body in the office from whom they can make inquiry about their arrival. Thereafter when the complainant and panch witness reached near the gate of the office accused Om Parkash came on two wheeler scooter. He was pillion rider. The scooter went across the road near a tree adjacent to boundary wall of MCD flats. Complainant and panch witness followed and went there. The person driving the scooter went away and after some conversation complainant took out the money from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same in the left hand of accused Om Parkash which the accused kept in left pocket of his shirt. Raid Officer seen the transaction and in the meantime he received pre determined signal from the panch witness. Thereafter he along with raiding team went to the spot and there panch witness informed about FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 3/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc the transaction. Raid Officer challenged the accused after disclosing h is identity and also offered his search before taking search of accused but accused refused to do so and became perplexed. On the direction of Raid Officer panch witness recovered the bribe money of rs. 2000/- from the left pant pocket of accused Om Parkash. That GC note was taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/C after tallying its numbers recorded in the pre raid report. Thereafter left hand wash of accused Om Parkash and wash of his left pant pocket was taken separately in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and that solution was filled up in four small empty clean bottles and marked paper slips LHW-I-II and LSPPW-I-II were pasted on those bottles. Those bottles along with sample seal and pulanda of pant were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/D . Thereafter Raid Officer had drawn rukka Ex. PW8/A and sent constable Ramesh Kumar for the registration of case . Thereafter Insp. Ashok Kumar Investigating Officer was called at the spot and custody of the accused Om Parkash was handed over to him along with case property. Investigating Officer prepared site plan Ex. PW7/A and during the course of investigation he recorded the disclosure statement of accused Om Parkash vide Ex. PW5/G. During the course of investigation accused Trilok Singh was arrested vide memo Ex. PW7/D and Investigating Officer after investigation of case filed the charge sheet. 4 After complying with the provisions of Section 207 Cr. P. C. and after hearing the Ld. Addl. PP for the state and ld. Counsels for accused persons charges were framed against the accused. FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 4/18
State V/s Om Parkash etc 5 In order to prove its case prosecution examined 12 witness. 6 Thereafter statement of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 Cr. P. C wherein they denied about the demand and acceptance of the bribe amount. They claimed to be innocent and falsely implicated in this case. They examined DW1 Ramesh Kumar in support of their defence.
7 I have heard Sh. R. S. Singhal Advocate for accused Om Parkash and Sh. Ashok Soni Advocate for accused Trilok Singh Singh. 8 The first and foremost point for consideration is whether sanction was properly accorded for prosecution of both the accused persons. In order to prove sanction prosecution examined PW9 sh. A. K. Chaturvedi Spl. Commissioner, Transport, Government of NCT of Delhi who deposed that in November/December 2002 he was posted as Dy. Commissioner MCD and he received a request from Anti Corruption Branch along with copy of FIR and other relevant documents to grant sanction u/s 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute accused Om Parkash and Trilok Singh posted as LDC and UDC respectively. He had gone through the documents placed before him very carefully and had applied his mind and after examining the facts and circumstances of the case he accorded sanction Ex. PW9/A. He denied the suggestion that he received the draft sanction order. Sanction order Ex. PW9/A is in detail and in itself reflect due application of mind. There is nothing to suggest that the sanction was accorded without application of mind. Sanctioning authority categorically stated that he was competent FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 5/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc to remove both the accused persons from service and was competent to accord sanction. Prosecution has proved that sanction was properly accorded by the competent authority after due application of mind. Reference is placed on case State of Maharashtra and ors V/s Ishvar Piraji Kelpatri & ors. 1996 Cri. L. J. 1127, where Hon'ble Supreme Court had laid down that if the Authority according sanction makes statement that while signing the order of sanction, it had personally scrutinised the file and had arrived at required satisfaction , it is not necessary to look for, that there was application of mind or not or that material on record was examined by the concerned officer or not before according sanction, especially when order prima facie shows that, he had done so. In the case C. S. Krishnamuthy V/s State of Karnataka, 2005 IV AD (SC) 141, the Apex court in para 7 of the judgment has held as under:-
This sanction order was proved by Mr. V. Parthasarthy, Deputy General Manager of Bangalore Telecom as PW 40 , he was competent authority to accord sanction and he accorded the sanction for prosecution of accused for the alleged offence on 28th February, 1990 as per Ex.P.83 . He deposed that S. P., CBI sent a report against the accused and he perused the report and accorded the sanction as per Ex. P.83 . He deposed that he was satisfied that there was a case for prosecuting the accused for the alleged offence. He admitted that he received a draft sanction order and a draft sanction FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 6/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc was also examined by vigilance cell and then it was put up before him. He also deposed that before according sanction he discussed the matter with the vigilance cell. He also admitted that he was not a law man, therefore, he discussed the legal implication with a legally qualified officer in the vigilance cell. He has denied the suggestion that he did not apply his mind in according sanction. It is no doubt true that the sanction is necessary for every prosecution of public servant, this safeguard is against the frivolous prosecuting against public servant from harassment. But the sanction should not be taken as a shield to protect corrupt and dishonest public servant
9 It is submitted by Sh. R. S. singhal ld. counsel for accused Om parkash that complainant no where deposed that accused Om Parkash ever demanded and accepted the bribe amount rather deposed that he thrusted the bribe amount in the pocket of accused Om Parkash. It is further submitted by him that even the complaint Ex. PW5/A was not given by the complainant to Raid Officer Insp. N. S. Minhas of his own volition rather the same was dictated to him by Insp. N. S. Minhas. It is further submitted by him that panch witness is a stock witness of Anti Corruption Branch and no reliance can be placed on his evidence. I have carefully considered the submission of ld. defence counsel but I do not find any force in the submission of ld. defence counsel . It is true that complainant did not support the prosecution case fully and was cross FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 7/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc examined by ld. Addl. PP for state but it is proved from his testimony that he went to Anti Corruption Branch and gave his complaint Ex. PW5/A. It is also proved from his testimony that the bribe amount was recovered from the left side pant pocket of accused Om Parkash and same was seized vide memo Ex. PW5/C. It is also proved from his statement that left hand wash and left side pant pocket wash of accused was taken separately in some water like solution which turned pink and that solution was transferred into four small clean bottles which was sealed by the Raid Officer and those bottles were taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW5/D. He identified those bottles which was mark LHW-I-II and LSPPW- I-II.
10 Complainant deposed that when complaint Ex. PW5/A was given by him panch witness was also called by the Raid Officer and the same was also signed by the panch witness. When he was cross examined by Ld. Addl. PP he admitted that complaint Ex. PW5/A was written by him but he he volunteered to say that same was written by him on the dictation of Raid Officer . In fact he stated so because he was won over by the accused persons. There was no question of complaint Ex. PW5/A being dictated by the Raid Officer. How could the Raid Officer know about the name of Om Parkash and Trilok Singh ? How could the Raid Officer know that complainant was running a Paan Khokha ? How could the Raid Officer know that a civil suit was pending in the court about that Paan Khokha unless these details were given by the complainant?. These details were given by the complainant himself in his complaint Ex. FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 8/18
State V/s Om Parkash etc PW5/A. It is further significant to note that complaint Ex. PW5/A was written by complainant in presence of panch witness. Panch witness PW11 S. K. Saxena categorically deposed that complainant wrote his complaint Ex. PW5/A in his presence and in the presence of Raid Officer . There was no question of Raid Officer dictating the complaint Ex. PW5/A in presence of an independent witness i.e. PW11. No suggestion was given to the panch witness in his cross examination that complaint Ex. PW5/A was not given by the complainant rather the same was dictated to the complainant by the Raid Officer. Raid Officer ( PW8 ) categorically deposed that complainant came to him and wrote his complaint Ex. PW5/A in his presence and in the presence of panch witness. No suggestion was given to the Raid Officer in the cross examination that complaint Ex. PW5/A was not given by the complainant rather the same was dictated to him by him.
11 It is significant to note that even though the complainant turned hostile but he deposed that when he met Om Parkash he asked him whether he was Om Parkash and he replied it affirmative. He told him about his work and Om Parkash told him that he would talk to him in his office. He thought that Om Parkash would again talk about money in his office so he put those treated GC notes in the pocket of accused Om Parkash. He deposed falsely so far as putting of the amount in the pocket of accused was concerned just to save him. He also deposed falsely regarding asking accused Om Parkash about the identity. His testimony that accused Om Parkash would again talk about money in his office FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 9/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc corroborates the averments made in the complaint that accused Om Parkash demanded the money.
12 It is significant to note that regarding demand of bribe amount panch witness PW11 specifically deposed that accused Om Parkash asked the complainant whether he had brought whatever he had demanded on which the complainant replied in affirmative. He further deposed that thereafter complainant took out those treated GC notes from pocket of his shirt and gave them in the left hand of accused Om Parkash and accused Om Parkash kept the same in left pocket of his pant. Thereafter he gave pre determined signal. Raid Officer immediately came there and he informed the Raid Officer about the transaction. Raid Officer disclosed his identity and challenged the accused. Accused became perplexed. He further deposed that on the direction of the Raid Officer he recovered those bribe amount from the left pant pocket of the accused. When he was cross examined by ld defence counsel for accused Om Parkash he stated that he was with complainant when bribe was demanded by the accused and handed over to the accused by the complainant. No suggestion was given to panch witness that complainant thrusted the bribe amount in the left pant pocket of accused. 13 The statement of panch witness regarding the acceptance of the bribe amount by accused Om Parkash with his left hand and keeping the same in left pocket of his pant is further corroborated by Raid Officer ( PW8 ) who categorically deposed that he saw that conversation was going on between the complainant and the accused and after some time FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 10/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc complainant took out the money from the pocket of his shirt and handed over the same in the left hand of accused which the accused kept in left pocket of his pant. No suggestion was given to the Raid Officer in the cross examination that he had not seen the complainant handing over the bribe amount in the left hand of accused Om Parkash and accused keeping the same in the left pocket of his pant. No suggestion was given to him that the bribe amount was thrusted by the complainant in the left pant pocket of the accused. Accused examined DW1 Ramesh Kumar to prove that bribe amount was thrusted in his pocket. Ramesh Kumar deposed that he was selling chole kulche in front of MCD office, Rajpur Road since 1983 and about seven years ago accused Om Parkash came to his rehri to take chole kulche and at that time one person came and thrusted some currency note in the left pocket of his pant. The accused tried to take out the money from his pocket and in the meantime some persons came there and took him. In his cross examination he admitted that he did not have any license to run rehri. He further stated that he had been challaned number of times by MCD. He has not brought any challan. He denied the suggestion that he was running his rehri at the mercy of MCD officials and therefore deposing falsely. Statement of this witness does not inspire any confidence. First of all he has not proved anything on the record to show that he was running any such rehri. Though he stated that he was challaned number of times but he did not prove any challan.
14 There was no question of complainant thrusting the bribe FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 11/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc amount in the pocket of the accused . In fact it is proved from the statement of panch witness and Raid Officer that accused accepted the bribe amount with his left hand and kept the same in left pocket of his pant. If the bribe amount was thrusted in the pant pocket of accused Om Parkash then there was no occasion for the wash of left hand of accused Om Parkash turning pink. The wash turned pink only because the accused accepted the bribe am ount with his left hand. Panch witness categorically deposed that wash of left hand of accused turned pink. Raid Officer also categorically deposed that wash of left hand of accused Om Parkash turned pink. Even complainant deposed that wash of left hand of accused Om Parkash turned pink. The wash of left hand of accused Om Parkash was transferred in two small clean bottles i.e. LHW-I-II. LHW-I was sent to FSL . Likewise the pocket wash was taken separately and was put into two small empty clean bottles i.e. LSPPW-I-II. LSPPW-I and LHW-I were sent to FSL and the FSL report Ex. PW7/C gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein powder.
15 It is submitted by ld defence counsel that the wash of left hand turned pink because after the GC notes were thrusted in the pocket of accused Om Parkash accused Om Parkash was apprehended while he was taking out the GC notes from his left pant pocket. It is submitted by him that complainant has stated so. It is true that complainant deposed that when accused Om Parkash was in the process of taking out money from his pocket the members of raiding team came and apprehended him. In fact he stated to just to help the accused and to give an explanation as FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 12/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc to how left hand wash of accused turned pink. Here is relevant to refer to the case of Som Parkash V/s State of Delhi AIR 1974 Supreme Court 989 , where in para 10 it is held as under:
"But the ................ of course , the oral evidence of Pws 1 and 4 by itself, if believed, as rightly believed by the High Court, proves the passing of the money when challenged by P.W.7. The fact is indisputable that the hands, the handkerchief and the inner lining of the trouser pocket of the accused turned violet when dipped in soda ash solution. From this the State Counsel argues that on no hypothesis except that the notes emerged from the accused 's pocket or possession can the triple colour change be accounted for. The evidence furnished by inorganic chemistry often outwits the techonology of corrupt officials, provided no alternative reasonable possibility is made out. The appellant offers a plausible theory, PW 1 kept the notes with him and h is hands thus carried the powder. He gave a bottle of coke to the accused and the bottle thus transmitted particles of phenolphthalein to the latter 's hands. He ( the accused ) wiped h is face with the handkerchief and put it into his trouser pocket thus contaminating the lining with the guilty substance. Moreover, the inner lining was dipped by PW 7 with his hands which had the powder. Thus, all the three items stand explained, according to him. These recondite possibilities and likely freaks have been rejected by both the courts and we are hardly persuaded into FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 13/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc hostility to that finding. It is but meet that science- oriented detection of crime is made a massive programme of police work, for in our technological age nothing more primitive can be conceived of than denying the discoveries of the sciences as aids to crime suppression and nothing cruder can retard forensic efficiency than swearing by traditional oral evidence only thereby discouraging the liberal use of scientific research to prove guilt."
16 There was no question of accused Om Parkash being apprehended while he was in the process of taking out GC notes from left pocket of his pant. Panch witness categorically deposed that on the direction of Raid Officer he took out the bribe amount from left pocket of the accused. No suggestion was given to panch witness in cross examination that bribe amount was not recovered by him from left pant pocket of accused. Raid Officer categorically deposed that bribe amount was recovered by the panch witness from left pant pocket of accused Om Parkash on his direction. Again no suggestion was given to him that bribe amount was not recovered by panch witness from left pant pocket of accused. No suggestion was given either to panch witness or Raid Officer that accused Om Parkash was apprehended while he was in the process of taking out of GC notes from left pocket of his pant. 17 There was no question of panch witness being stock witness simply because panch witness admitted in his cross examination that he was deputed for duty as panch witness to Anti Corruption Branch for FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 14/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc about 8.-10 times. It is not within the hand of particular person to be deputed as a panch witness. The names of panch witnesses are given by the respective Government Departments to Anti Corruption Branch in advance for a month. Panch witness categorically deposed that though he was put on duty as panch witness about 10-12 times but he participated in this raid only. If he was stock witness then he would have been associated in numerous raids. There was no question of being his stock witness.
18 Once it is proved that the tainted currency notes were recovered from the accused then it was for him to explain that money received by him was not illegal gratification. Here it is useful to refer to Three Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in Raghubir Singh V/s State of Haryana AIR 1974 SC 1516 wherein it was held that the very fact that the accused was in possession of marked currency notes against the allegations that he demanded and received the amount is 'res ipsa- loquitur."
19 It is submitted by ld defence counsel that mere recovery of the GC notes has no relevance. In Sita Ram V/s State of Rajasthan AIR 1975 Supreme Court 1432 and Surajmal V/s State AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1408 it was held that mere recovery of GC notes has no relevance. The matter regarding presumption u/s 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act came up before the Four Judge Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of Dhanwant Rai Balwant Rai Desai V/s State AIR 1964 Supreme Court 575 considered this fact and held as under:- FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 15/18
State V/s Om Parkash etc Therefore, the court has no choice in the matter, once it is established that the accused person has received a sum of money which was not due to him as a legal remuneration. Of course, it is open to that person to show that though that money was not due to him as legal remuneration, it was legally due to him in some other manner or that he had received it under a transaction or an arrangement which was lawful. The burden resting on the accused person in such a case would not be as light as it is where a presumption is raised under Section 114 of the Evidence Act and cannot be held to be discharged merely by reason of the fact that the explanation offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words ' unless the contrary is proved ' which occurs in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by ' proof ' and not by a mere explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted. Something more than raising a reasonable probability, is required for rebutting a presumption of law. The bare word of the appellant is not enough and it was necessary for him to show that upon the established practice his FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 16/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc explanation was so probable that a prudent man, ought in the circumstances, to have accepted it."(emphasis supplied ).
20 The only allegations against accused Trilok Singh was that on 25.2.2002 when complainant met accused Om Parkash in the MCD office accused Om Parkash introduced him to accused Trilok Singh and then Trilok Singhi asked him as to why he was running his shop there and told him to remove his khokha and when he pleaded with accused Trilok Singh, Trilok Singh asked the complainant to talk to Om Parkash and thereafter accused Om Parkash told him " Sahab Panch Hazaar Mang Rahe Hai" and when he said it would not be possible to arrange so much money Om Parkash told him to give the money on 27.2.2002. Complainant no where deposed that he met accused Om Parkash in the presence of accused Trilok Singh or that accused Om Parkash introduced him to accused Trilok Singh or that accused Trilok Singh asked him to talk to accused Om Parkash. Prosecution has failed to prove that accused Trilok Singh demanded or accepted the bribe from the complainant.
In view of the above discussion, I am of the view that prosecution is able to prove its case against accused Om Parkash beyond all reasonable doubts. Accused Om Parkash is accordingly held guilty and convicted for committing offences U/s 7 and 13 (1 ) (d) punishable U/s 13 (2 ) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. However prosecution has failed to prove its case against accused Trilok Singh. Accused Trilok FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 17/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc Singh is acquitted. Let accused Om Parkash be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 15th April , 2010.
( A. S. YADAV ) SPECIAL JUDGE DELHI FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 18/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc IN THE COURT OF SH. A. S. YADAV, SPECIAL JUDGE, DELHI CC No. : 99/2002 State V/s Om Parkash S/o Sh. Ram Prasad R/o F-32, Aruna Nagar, Civil Lines, Delhi.
FIR No. : 08/2002 Under Section : 7/13 (1) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch ORDER ON SENTENCE
I have heard Sh. Alok Saxena, Addl. Public Prosecutor for the State and Sh. R. S. Singhal, Advocate for the convict (who is present on bail) on the point of sentence.
2 Ld. counsel for the convict submits that the convict is aged 42 years and has wife and a daughter aged 12 years and his son aged 01 year to support and he is the sole bread earner of his family. It is prayed that a lenient view be taken on the point of sentence. 3 Ld. Addl. Public Prosecutor states that the convict does not deserve any leniency because there is rampant corruption amongst public servants and to curb this evil, deterrent punishment should be imposed. 4 After having heard both the sides and upon perusal of the record, I find that it is difficult to accept the prayer of the convict that a lenient view be taken in this case. Corruption is rampant in this country, that it requires all possible measures to remove the same from the polity. Today, it seems that honesty is a very rare need. Very few person muster the FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 19/18 State V/s Om Parkash etc courage to report the matter regarding demand of bribe. Otherwise, under compulsion they are forced to pay the same. With the result, bribe takers virtually have no fear. No leniency is to be shown to such offenders. 5 Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of this case, I sentence convict Om Parkash s/o Sh Ram Prasad to undergo RI for a period of 02 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall undergo SI for a period of 04 months. Convict is further sentenced to undergo RI for a period of 02 years and a fine of Rs. 10,000/- (Rs. Ten thousand) u/s 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and in default of payment of fine, convict shall further undergo SI for a period of 04 months. Both the sentences shall run concurrently and the convict shall be entitled to benefit under section 428 Cr. P.C. 6 A duly attested copy of the judgment and this order be supplied to the convict free of costs and thereafter file be consigned to the record room.
Announced in the open court on ( A. S. YADAV )
this 16th day of April, 2010 SPECIAL JUDGE DELHI
FIR No. 08/02 Page No. 20/18