Delhi District Court
State vs . Jasbir Singh, on 23 May, 2012
IN THE COURT OF MS. SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL,
SPECIAL JUDGE, ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH, DELHI
CC. No. 83/2008
Unique Case ID No. 02401R1242632008
State Vs. Jasbir Singh,
S/o Sh. Netrapal Singh,
R/o RC No. 226,
Near Raja City Public School,
Shani Bazar Master Park,
Khoda Makanpur Colony,
Ghaziabad, U.P.
F.I.R. No. : 11/2008
Under Section : 7 & 13 (i) (d) of Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988.
Police Station : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of filing of Chargesheet : 03.10.2008
Date on which the order was reserved : 02.05.2012
Date of Order : 23.05.2012
JUDGMENT
The case of the prosecution is that on 13.05.2008, Subdhara had a quarrel with Rahul who was under the influence of liquor. The children of Subdhara made a complaint to the police on which accused Jasbir Singh, Head Constable Police Station Kotla, FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 1 of 25 Mubarakpur, Delhi arrived at the spot. Accused called Subdhara to the Police Station and threatened to implicate her in a case if she failed to fulfill his demand of bribe of Rs.1,500/. The case of the prosecution further is that Subdhara gave Rs.1,000/ to the accused but on 14.05.2008 he again went to her house and gave his mobile number to her children and directed them to send their father to the police station to give the remaining bribe amount of Rs.500/ for closing the pending case. The case of the prosecution further is that on 16.05.2008 Parmeshwar Deen Yadav, husband of Subdhara spoke to the accused on his mobile who asked him to reach INA Market, Delhi at 7:00 P.M. with the bribe amount of Rs.500/.
Parmeshwar Deen Yadav, the Complainant (PW3) lodged the complaint Ex.PW3/A in the Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi.
2. On the basis of the complaint Ex.PW3/A a trap was laid by the Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi on 16.05.2008 and the accused was caught redhanded while demanding/accepting Rs.500/ as illegal gratification from the Complainant (PW3) in the presence of Panch Witness (PW6).
3. In this background twofold charges were framed against the accused that on 13.05.2008, while working as Head Constable in FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 2 of 25 Delhi Police and posted at PS Mubarkpur, Delhi and as such being a public servant demanded bribe of Rs.1,500/ from Subdhara, wife of the Complainant (PW3) for settling down a case of quarrel between Subdhara and Rahul and he took Rs.1,000/ from Subdhara and on 16.05.2008 at 08.55 P.M. at INA Market, Near STD Booth demanded and accepted Rs.500/ as balance bribe amount other than legal remuneration from the Complainant (PW3) for the above said purpose and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; and further being employed as a public servant obtained bribe of Rs.500/ from the Complainant (PW3) as a pecuniary advantage for himself by corrupt or illegal means or otherwise by abusing his position as such public servant and thereby committed an offence of criminal misconduct as specified under Section 13 (i) (d) and punishable under Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
4. In order to bring home the charges prosecution examined 16 witnesses before the Statement of accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure wherein he claimed to be innocent and denied the demand and acceptance of the bribe from the Complainant (PW3) or his wife. He stated that the matter was FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 3 of 25 amicably settled between the parties so there was no occasion for him to demand any bribe. He further stated that the Complainant (PW3) was angry as his wife Subdhara had been called to the Police Station. He further stated that in fact he had gone to the INA Market, Delhi to meet his nephew where he accidentally met the Complainant (PW3) who thrust Rs.500/ in his pocket and when the Complainant (PW3) pushed the money in his hand he was apprehended by the officials of the Anti Corruption Branch.
5. The accused in order to strengthen his case examined five defence witnesses. Nikhil Kumar (DW1), nephew of the accused deposed that he had accompanied his uncle to a juice shop in the market where one person shook hands with him and offered money to him which his uncle refused to accept but the said person insisted his uncle to accept money. In the meantime 45 persons came there and apprehended his uncle and took him in a Gypsy. R. K. Singh (DW2), Nodal Officer, Bharti Airtel proved the Cell ID Chart of Mobile No. 9810326683 of the Complainant (PW3) and Mobile No.9818988188 of the accused. Rahul Kumar (DW3) deposed that on 13.05.2008 the Complainant (PW3) came to his house and demanded his money given on interest to his family and on this a quarrel took place and the FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 4 of 25 police was called. According to DW3 accused got the matter compromised. HC Samender Singh (DW4) proved the DD entry Ex.DW4/A which shows that the accused was sent to lock up on 16.05.2008. Jabar Singh (DW5) deposed admitted that on page A of the DD register dated 16.05.2008 in the portion encircled red on Ex.DW5/A the serial numbers 31 & 32 have been entered twice.
6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined B. L. Meena (PW4) who proved the service biodata of accused vide Ex.PW4/A. H.G.S. Dhaliwal (PW2) accorded the sanction under Section 19 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecution of the accused vide Ex.PW2/A. S.I. Karnail Singh (PW14) recorded the conversation between the Complainant (PW3) and the accused and prepared two CDs, one CD was sealed with the seal of FSL and taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F and other CD proved as Ex.P8 was kept open for investigation. Inspector Santosh Kumar, Investigating Officer (PW11) took the custody of the accused, bribe money of Rs.500/, exhibits LHWI, LHWII, LSPPWIII, sample seal of KC, two CDs, pulanda of seized pant of accused, seizure memo and other relevant documents of this case and prepared the site plan Ex.PW11/A, arrested the accused vide Ex.PW6/B, took his personal FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 5 of 25 search vide Ex.PW6/C, received the FSL report Ex.PW11/C and obtained the call details of mobile phone of accused and Complainant (PW3). Satinder Pal (PW15) accompanied the raiding team to INA Market and returned to PS Anti Corruption Branch after getting the accused medically examined at Aruna Asaf Ali Hospital. Ct. Krishan Kumar (PW16) accompanied the raiding team and deposed that Raid Officer (PW7) had conducted all the proceedings at the spot, accused was arrested in his presence and lodged in Civil Lines lock up. HC Suraj Pal (PW9) got the FIR registered in the Anti Corruption Branch on the basis of the rukka. HC Om Prakash (PW8) deposed that he sent samples of exhibits LHWI & LSPPWI to the FSL, Rohini. HC Jarnail Singh (PW13) recorded DD No. 34A vide Ex.PW10/A. Ct. E. B. Suresh (PW10) proved the DD entries Ex.PW10/A and Ex.PW10/B. R.K. Singh (PW12) furnished the call details of accused and the Complainant (PW3) vide Ex.PW11/D & Ex.PW11/E.
7. In order to prove the demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe amount, the prosecution examined material witnesses being Subdhara Yadav (PW5), the Complainant Parmeshwar Deen Yadav FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 6 of 25 (PW3), Panch Witness N. K. Abrahim (PW6), Raid Officer Inspector Kailash Chand (PW7) and SI Manoj Kumar (PW1).
8. In this background, Sh. B. S. Kain, Ld. Addl. PP represented the state and accused Jasbir Singh was represented by Shri Yogesh Kumar Verma, Advocate.
RIVAL ARGUMENTS
9. Ld. Defence Counsel argued that the prosecution has failed to establish its case under Sections 7 & 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 as no demand was made from the Complainant (PW3) and the testimony of the Complainant (PW3) is required to be carefully analyzed as he is an interested witness who wanted to implicate the accused. It is further argued that the Panch Witness (PW6) failed to support the case of the prosecution.
10. It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that the prosecution witnesses have proved its case against the accused for which he has been charged even though the Panch Witness (PW6) partly turned hostile.
11. I heard the rival contentions and carefully perused the record.
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 7 of 25
12. Subdhara Yadav (PW5), one of the material witnesses deposed that on 13.05.2005 she had a quarrel with Rahul and police was called by dialing 100. She deposed that the accused took her to the Police Station and demanded Rs.1,500/ from her to abstain from implicating her in a case for quarrel with Rahul and also to spoil the career of her husband who was a Government Servant. She deposed that she gave Rs.1,000/ to the accused out of compulsion but the accused came to her house on the next day and left his contact number with her children telling them to send their father to the Police Station with the balance of Rs.500/. She deposed that her husband came to know of what had transpired and lodged a complaint Ex.PW3/A in the Anti Corruption Branch.
13. Complainant (PW3) deposed that on 13.05.2008 he had gone to Sarojini Nagar Market and came to know on return that his wife had a quarrel with Rahul who was residing in a Jhuggi near their house and was under the influence of liquor. The Complainant (PW3) deposed that his children informed the police who came to the spot and took his wife and Rahul to the Police Station. The Complainant (PW3) deposed that on coming to know that his wife had been taken to the Police Station Kotla Mubarkpur he went towards the Police FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 8 of 25 Station but met his wife on the way as she was returning from the Police Station. The Complainant (PW3) further deposed that his wife informed him about the demand of bribe made by the accused, that she had already given Rs.1,000/ to him and that the accused had threatened to falsely implicate him. The Complainant (PW3) further deposed that on 16.05.2008, he spoke to the accused on phone as he had left his mobile number with his children on 14.05.2008 and the accused asked him to meet him with the bribe money at 07:00 P.M. at INA Market. The Complainant (PW3) deposed that on the same day he went to Anti Corruption Branch and wrote his complaint Ex.PW3/A in the presence of Panch Witness (PW6) and handed over one GC note of Rs.500/ to the Raid Officer (PW7) who recorded the serial number of those GC note in preraid report Ex.PW3/B, applied phenolphthalein powder on that note and gave a demonstration by touching the hand of Panch Witness (PW6) and took wash of the hand of the Panch Witness (PW6) in some water like solution which turned pink and he received the treated GC note and kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt and the solution was thrown away and they all washed their hands with clean water and soap. He further deposed that the Raid Officer (PW7) instructed the Panch Witness (PW6) to FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 9 of 25 remain close with him and to over hear the conversation and to give the signal by hurling his hand over his head as soon as bribe amount is accepted and handed over to the person demanding the bribe. He further deposed that thereafter the Raid Officer (PW7) prepared the preraid proceedings Ex.PW3/B. According to the Complainant (PW3) at about 6:30 P.M. he accompanied the Panch Witness (PW6), Raid Officer (PW7) and other members of the raiding team to INA Market where he along with the Panch Witness (PW6) went to police booth INA Market and the accused came to the spot at about 11:0011:30 p.m. and demanded the bribe amount from him and he took out the GC note and handed over the same to the accused which he accepted with his hand and kept the same in his pocket. According to the Complainant (PW3), the Panch Witness (PW6) gave a predetermined signal to the raiding party and they came to the spot and the Raid Officer (PW7) disclosed his identity and challenged the accused who became perplexed and begged pardon. Thereafter, the Raid Officer (PW7) recovered the bribe amount from the left front pocket shirt of the accused and tallied the serial number of the GC note with the serial number mentioned in the preraid report which tallied. The treated GC note was taken into FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 10 of 25 possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C and thereafter washes of both the hands of the accused and the wash of the shirt pocket of the accused were taken in a water like solution which turned pink and the shirt of the accused was converted into pulanda. The bottles and pulanda were also taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D and the Raid Officer (PW7) drew the postraid proceedings Ex.PW3/E. He further deposed that a CD of conversation between him and the accused was prepared and the same was seized vide memo Ex.PW3/F.
14. The Panch Witness (PW6) corroborated the testimony of the Complainant (PW3) on all material aspects and deposed that the Complainant (PW3) wrote his complaint Ex.PW3/A on 16.05.2008 in the Anti Corruption Branch and also produced one GC note of Rs.500/ to the Raid Officer (PW7) who recorded the serial number of the same in the preraid report Ex.PW3/B. The Panch Witness (PW6) also corroborated the testimony of Complainant (PW3) that the Raid Officer (PW7) gave demonstration of the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder to him and the Complainant (PW3). The Panch Witness (PW6) deposed that the Raid Officer (PW7) after giving usual instructions returned the treated GC notes to the FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 11 of 25 Complainant (PW3) which he kept in his pocket. Thereafter the Raid Officer (PW7) prepared the preraid proceedings Ex.PW3/B. The Panch Witness (PW6) corroborated the testimony of the Complainant (PW3) that both of them went to the INA Market, Delhi and further deposed that they both waited for the arrival of the accused. Finally, the Raid Officer (PW7) instructed the Complainant (PW3) to make a call to accused Jasbir Singh and after talking to him the Complainant (PW3) told the Raid Officer (PW7) that accused Jasbir Singh would be coming in a short while.
The Panch Witness (PW6) however did not support the case of the prosecution on the fact that the accused demanded bribe and deposed that:
"Thereafter I along with the Complainant went on the other side of the market, where accused Jasbir Singh, present in the Court correctly identified. Complainant inquired from the accused about the reason of delay. Accused told the Complainant that he had come to take juice for his niece, who was ill. Thereafter, the Complainant told the accused that he had brought the money and asked the accused to accept the same.
Thereafter, accused told Complainant that there is no need to give money as his work FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 12 of 25 has already been done. Thereafter, the accused inquired from the Complainant about me and Complainant introduced me as his friend. The accused also told me to ask the Complainant that there is no need to give money and in case there is any problem with the Complainant he can contact him. Thereafter, Complainant told the accused that he has brought the money and further pleaded with the accused to accept the money and then the Complainant took out that GC note and gave in the right hand of the accused".
Even though the Panch Witness (PW6) turned hostile on the aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused he admitted his signatures on 2 CDs of recorded conversation which were prepared during preraid proceedings and were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/F. He also admitted his signatures on the seizure memo of GC notes Ex.PW3/C, seizure memo of the bottles and pulanda Ex.PW3/D, postraid proceedings Ex.PW3/E, arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW6/B and personal search memo of the accused Ex.PW6/C. He further admitted that he signed all the documents of this case after going through the same.
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 13 of 25
15. Raid Officer (PW7) also corroborated the testimony of Complainant (PW3) on all material facts i.e. the writing of complaint Ex.PW3/A by the Complainant (PW3) on 16.05.2008, preparation of the CD of the recorded conversation which took place between the Complainant (PW3) and the accused and the seizure thereof vide memo Ex.PW3/F. The Raid Officer (PW3) also confirmed that the Complainant (PW3) produced one GC note of Rs.500/, the serial number of which was recorded in the preraid report Ex.PW3/B and thereafter a demonstration of the characteristics of phenolphthalein powder was given by him to the Panch Witness (PW6) and the Complainant (PW3) and the treated GC note was returned to the Complainant (PW3) who kept the same in left pocket of his shirt and usual instructions to the Complainant (PW3) and Panch Witness (PW6) were given. The Raid Officer (PW7) also confirmed that the Complainant (PW3) and the Panch Witness (PW3) and other members of the raiding team went to the INA Market, Delhi and took suitable positions. According to the Raid Officer (PW7), the Panch Witness (PW6) came to him at about 08:00 P.M. and informed him that the person for whom they were waiting had not arrived. The Raid Officer (PW7) deposed that the Complainant (PW3) made a call on his mobile FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 14 of 25 phone and thereafter informed him that the said person was coming. The version of the Raid Officer (PW7) is that after a short while he received a predetermined signal from the Panch Witness (PW6) and he along with the raiding team rushed to spot and he made enquiries from the Panch Witness (PW6) who told him that accused Jasbir Singh had demanded bribe from the Complainant (PW3) and accepted the same with his left hand and kept in left pocket of his pant. He further deposed that he introduced himself to the accused who became perplexed and thereafter on his instructions, the Panch Witness (PW6) recovered the bribe amount of Rs.500/ from the left pant pocket of the accused and the serial number was compared with the serial number recorded in the preraid report Ex.PW3/B which tallied and the GC note was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/C. The Raid Officer (PW7) also deposed that the left hand wash and left pant pocket wash of the accused were taken and the solutions turned pink which were transferred into bottles and sealed with marked paper slips LHWI & II and LSPPWI & II and the pant of the accused was converted into Pulanda and the bottles and Pulanda were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW3/D and thereafter the post raid proceedings Ex.PW3/E were completed. FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 15 of 25 The Raid Officer (PW7) identified the GC note as Ex.P1, bottles as Ex.P2 to P5, pant as Ex.P6, Pulanda as Ex.P7 and CD as Ex.P8.
16. SI Manoj Kumar (PW1) deposed that he accompanied the raiding team on 16.05.2008 to INA Market along with Complainant (PW3) and Panch Witness (PW6) and in his presence Raid Officer (PW7) challenged the accused and the Panch Witness (PW6) recovered the tainted GC note from the possession of the accused. He further deposed that the hand wash of the accused was taken in his presence.
17. In a trap case, prosecution is required to prove the demand, acceptance & recovery of the bribe amount. All cases of corruption have two important aspects and they are (i) demand and
(ii) acceptance. Indisputably, the demand of illegal gratification is a sine qua non for constitution of an offence under the provisions of the Act. For arriving at the conclusion as to whether all the ingredients of an offence. Viz., demand, acceptance and recovery of the amount of illegal gratification have been satisfied or not, the court is required to consider the facts and circumstances brought on the record in their entirety.
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 16 of 25
18. In this background the question therefore arises whether the prosecution has successfully proved the demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused even though the Panch Witness (PW6) turned hostile. The prosecution through Subdhara (PW5) proved that the accused demanded Rs.1,500/ from her and she gave Rs.1,000/ to him but Rs.500/ was outstanding and the accused came to her house and gave his contact number to her children and reiterated his demand of the balance amount of Rs.500/ and also called her husband to the Police Station. PW5 has also deposed that the accused had threatened to implicate her husband falsely, in case his demand was not meted out. From the testimony of the Complainant (PW3), the Panch Witness (PW6) and the Raid Officer (PW7) it has been proved that the Complainant (PW3) lodged a complaint Ex.PW3/A on 16.05.2008 in the Anti Corruption Branch naming the accused Jasbir Singh and the demand made by him. The testimony of the above witnesses also prove that the Complainant (PW3) handed over a GC note of Rs.500/ to the Raid Officer (PW7) which was treated with phenolphthalein powder and returned to him to be given to the accused on his demand in the presence of the Panch Witness (PW6) who would accompany the Complainant (PW3) to the INA Market, Delhi where the accused FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 17 of 25 would meet him. The Complainant (PW3), the Panch Witness (PW6) and the Raid Officer (PW7) proved the fact that the serial number of the GC note of Rs.500/ was noted in the preraid report and returned to the Complainant (PW3).
19. According to the Complainant (PW3) when the accused came to the INA Market, he handed over the treated GC note of Rs.500/ to him on demand which he voluntarily accepted and kept in his pocket and this took place in the presence of the Panch Witness (PW6) who was all along accompanying him during the raid. According to the Complainant (PW3) the GC note of Rs.500/ was recovered from the possession of the accused and the serial number of the same when tallied with the preraid proceedings was found to be the same. The Panch Witness (PW6) did not support the prosecution story that the accused demanded & accepted money but instead deposed that the Complainant (PW3) thrust the GC note of Rs.500/ in the pocket of the accused.
20. No doubt as per the version of the Panch Witness (PW6) the Complainant (PW3) was trying to give money to the accused and the accused was refusing to accept the same and pushing his hand and the accused was apprehended while the money was in his left hand but FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 18 of 25 at the same time the Complainant (PW3) deposed that the bribe amount was recovered from the shirt pocket of the accused and the the Raid Officer (PW7) deposed that the bribe money was recovered from the pant of the accused. It is true that contradiction in the version of Complainant (PW3) and Panch Witness (PW6) has occurred but both these witnesses have not deposed that the bribe money was not recovered from the hands of the accused. The GC note produced by Complainant (PW3), treated with phenolphthalein powder was returned to him and according to the Complainant (PW3) the same GC note was handed over to the accused which was recovered from the accused in the presence of Panch Witness (PW6), Raid Officer (PW7) and SI Manoj Kumar (PW1).
21. The Panch Witness (PW6) did not support the case of the prosecution on demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused but admitted his signatures on the postraid proceedings Ex.PW3/E which are nothing but a panchnama and admissible in evidence which has been prepared on the basis of what is heard and seen by the Panch Witness (PW6). The admissibility of panchnama was considered by Division Bench of Hon'ble High Court of Gujrat in case of Omarji V/s State AIR 1963 Gujrat 145 in which case the counsel for FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 19 of 25 the appellant contended that trial judge was in error in admitting the panchnama in evidence and relying upon it as the panchnama was inadmissible and hit by provisions of Section 162 Cr.P.C. Rejecting this contention their Lordships observed:
"A panchnama is essentially a document recorded about certain things which occur in the presence of panchas and which are seen and heard by them. Panchas are taken to the scene of the offence to see and hear certain things and subsequently they are examined at the trial to depose to those things and their evidence is relied upon in support of the testimony of an Investigating Officer. A panchnama recorded on such an occasion is in its turn relied upon in support of the evidence of the panchas as a statement previously made by them under sec. 157 of the Evidence Act".
22. Even for the sake of arguments if the testimony of the Panch Witness (PW6) is not taken into account the law is that even if the Complainant and Panch Witness have turned hostile conviction can be made on the solitary statement of a trap officer without corroboration if it inspires confidence. In Hazari Lal V/s State (Delhi Admn) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873, it has been held:
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 20 of 25 "In that case the allegations against the accused who was a police officer was that he demanded bribe from the complainant for release of his scooter rickshaw which was seized by the police.
The trap was laid and the accused was caught red handed. However, during trial complainant turned hostile and deposed that when he went to the police station on first occasion to obtain delivery of his scooter rickshaw it was not the accused that was present but one Hawaldar was present and it was not the accused but that Hawaldar who demanded bribe of Rs. 60/ from him and when he went to the police station along with punch witness he found accused there and asked him to take a sum of Rs. 60/ and return the scooter rickshaw. He stretched his hand with the money towards the pocket of accused 's trouser but accused said the money might be paid to the person for whom it was meant for. He refused to receive the money and jerked complainant 's hand with his hand as a result of which the notes came to be flung across the wall into neighboring room. He deposed that accused neither demanded the amount from him nor accepted the amount. The FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 21 of 25 punch witness who went along with the complainant could not be examined as he became insane and other punch witness turned hostile".
The conviction was based on the statement of trap officer and the Hon'ble Supreme Court held:
"We are not prepared to accept the submission of Shri Frank Authony that he is the very Police Officer who laid the trap should be sufficient for us to insist upon corroboration. We do wish to say that there is no rule of prudence which has crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers should be treated on the same footing as evidence of accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration. In facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer without corroboration, but, equally, in the facts and circumstances of another case, the Court may unhesitatingly agent the evidence of such an officer".
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 22 of 25
23. Returning to the evidence of the Raid Officer (PW7), the Complainant (PW3) and the Panch Witness (PW6) had been instructed to remain close to each other and the Panch Witness (PW6) had been further instructed to give a signal as soon as the accused accepts bribe. According to the Raid Officer (PW7) he reached the spot on the signal of the Panch Witness (PW6) and the Panch Witness (PW6) narrated that the accused had demanded and accepted Rs.500/ from the Complainant (PW3). The Raid Officer (PW7) deposed that he challenged the accused that he had accepted bribe who became perplexed and thereafter the recovery of the GC note of Rs.500/ was effected from the pant pocket of the accused in the presence of the Complainant (PW3), Panch Witness (PW6) and SI Manoj Kumar (PW1). The Complainant (PW3) and SI Manoj Kumar (PW1) both the PWs have supported the case of prosecution.
24. Had the accused not accepted the bribe amount then the wash of his pant pocket would not have turned pink and gave positive test for presence of phenolphthalein powder. It only turned pink because the bribe money was kept by the accused with his hands in his pocket and the accused failed to give any explanation to this evidence against him.
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 23 of 25
25. Once it is proved that the bribe amount was recovered from the accused then it was for him to prove that the amount received by him was his legal remuneration and 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."
In State of AP V/s Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy 2000 (9) SCC 752 it was held that when amount is found to have been passed to the public servant the burden is on public servant to establish that it was not by way of illegal gratification. That burden was not discharged by the accused.
26. The accused failed to discharge the burden of proving that Rs.500/ found on his possession was not illegal gratification. On the other hand the prosecution witnesses have proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused demanded and accepted Rs.500/ from the Complainant (PW3) as illegal gratification. The chemical analysis Ex.PW11/C also clearly and unerringly points towards the guilt of the the accused and further connects him to the commission of FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 24 of 25 offence which is sufficient enough to raise a complete presumption of guilt against the accused.
27. CONCLUSION In consequence, I am of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proven its case beyond reasonable doubt under Sections 7 & 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
28. RESULT Resultantly, accused Jasbir Singh is held guilty and convicted for committing an offence under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The accused is also held guilty and convicted for committing an offence under Section 13 (i) (d) punishable under Section 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Let he be heard on the point of sentence.
Announced in the SANGITA DHINGRA SEHGAL
Open Court on 23.05.2012 SPL. JUDGE, ACB, DELHI
FIR No. 11/08 State Vs. Jasbir Singh Page No. 25 of 25