Delhi District Court
Cbi vs . Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj on 21 February, 2013
AC NO. 65/11/02
CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj
1
IN THE COUR T OF RAJIV MEHRA
SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT)
KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT
DELHI
RC No.38 (A)/02
AC NO. 65/11/02
CBI
VERSUS
Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj
S/o Sh. Srikishan Bhardwaj
R/o 364/A1, Chirag Delhi,
New Delhi
JUDGMENT
1. The complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) in this case had purchased one Flat bearing No. 53B (Ist floor) Block FP, Maurya Enclave, Pitam Pura Delhi on GPA. He wanted to get this flat registered in his own name for which he required to get it free hold from DDA. Accused Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj as alleged at the relevant time was AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 2 the concerned dealing official in this regard in the office of DDA. As per CBI case accused allegedly made an illegal demand of Rs. 8000/-as bribe from the complainant for doing his job and he agreed to accept a sum of Rs. 3000/- as first instalment.
2. Since complainant was not inclined to pay the bribe amount, therefore, he made a complaint Ex.PW4/A in the office of CBI. Upon this complaint FIR Ex.PW11/1 was registered after verification and inquiry in the matter initially under Section 7 PC Act against the accused by name.
3. In accordance with the endorsement made on the complaint by the SP concerned for laying a trap the CBI formed a raiding party and besides complainant also arranged two independent witnesses namely Mahinder Pal (PW-9) and S.K. Bhasin (PW-10) both officials of NBCC New Delhi.
4. Accordingly on 17.6.2002 on the date of incident the complainant produced GC Notes of Rs. 3000/- in the form of 4 GC Notes of Rs. 500/- denomination and 10 Notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each. These notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. A separate solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared. The independent witness Mahinder Pal was asked to touch these currency AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 3 notes and when his hand fingers were dipped in colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate the colour of the same turned pink. The importance and significance of the reaction was explained to the trap team members. The currency notes thereafter were kept in the left side shirt pocket of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) with a direction to handover these GC Notes of Rs. 3000/- to the accused on his specific demand of bribe or to any other person as directed by him. Mahinder Pal (PW-9) Independent witness was directed to act as a shadow witness. He was also directed to give the signal after completing of the transaction. All these proceedings were recorded in handing over memo Ex. PW4/B. One Samsung Digital Pen Type Recorder was also arranged by the Trap Laying Officer and the formal introductory voice of both independent witnesses were recorded in the recorder. This recorder was placed in the shirt pocket of Alok Gupta (PW-4) in a switch off mode with an instruction to put the same in a recording mode prior to his entering in the office room of the accused in order to record the likely conversation between him and the accused. A memo Ex.PW4/C was separately drawn to this effect.
5. The case of the CBI is that the trap team left the office at about 3.50 pm and reached near DDA INA, Vikas Sadan D Block and after parking the vehicles at a safe distance the complainant was directed to contact the accused. Sh. Raj Kumar Sharma (PW-6) AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 4 employee of the complainant was pursuing this matter for conversion of his flat from lease hold to free hold in DDA office. He was in touch with the accused. He had seen the accused in the past. On the date of incident on 17.6.2002 as per the case of the CBI he was also accompanying the CBI team. Raj Kumar (PW-6) was sent inside the DDA office to contact the accused. At about 4.10 pm Raj Kumar (PW-6) was seen coming out with one person who was later on identified as Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj the accused facing trial before this Court. Raj Kumar (PW-6) introduced Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj to the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4). At about 4.15 pm the complainant gave pre- appointed signal and the trap team members including independent witness S.K. Bhasin (PW-10) rushed towards the complainant and accused. Accused was challenged by Inspector S.C. Bhalla TLO (PW-11) after disclosing his identity of having demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 3000/- from the complainant Alok Gupta. He got perplexed and nervous. Since the crowd was beginning to collect it was decided to conduct further proceedings in some room of the office of DDA. As such accused Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj was brought to the room of Director/OSD Housing Sh. N.B. Singh at third floor of the D Block as the LAB Housing Janta office was also on the same floor. Sh. Prem Chand (PW-8) Assistant Director LAB Housing Janta was also associated by the CBI team in further proceedings. The independent witness Mahinder Pal (PW-9) confirmed that after some formal talks AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 5 accused asked for the bribe amount and it was given to him and was accepted and kept by him in his right side pant pocket. Similar version was given by the complainant. The bribe amount of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from the right side pant pocket of the accused. On comparison of the number of these G.C. Notes allegedly recovered from the accused they were found tallied with the currency notes number given in the handing over memo (Ex.PW4/B).
6. IO prepared a fresh colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate and collected both hand wash of the accused separately. The colour of the solution on washing the hands turned pink. They were marked RHW and LHW. Similarly the wash of the right side pant pocket of the accused from where the bribe amount of Rs. 3000/- was allegedly recovered was also collected and was marked as RSPPW.
7. The digital voice recorder was also taken from the complainant and the conversation was heard by all the members which confirmed that accused was involved in bribe deal with the complainant. The recording in this recorder was got transferred in one cassette and same was seized separately. Another copy of the said recording was also made for investigation purpose. IO prepared rough site plan Ex.PW9/B. Tainted bribe amount of Rs. 3000/- alongwith three pink AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 6 bottles marked RHW, LHW and RSPPW were separately sealed and seized by the IO. One blue pant of the accused which he was allegedly wearing at the time of the incident was also seized. All these proceedings were recorded in recovery memo Ex.PW4/D. The case file Ex.PW4/E of the property of the complainant for which accused was allegedly demanding the bribe was also recovered from the office table of the accused and was seized by the CBI team. The accused was arrested vide separate arrest memo Ex.PW9/A. The transcription Ex.PW4/G of the spot conversation was also separately prepared same day.
8. The sample of specimen voice of the accused was collected by the CBI on 18.6.2002 vide memo Ex.PW10/1 in the presence of two independent witnesses Mahinder Pal (PW-9) and Sh. S.K. Bhasin (PW-10).
9. Since the accused was a Govt. Servant the sanction for his prosecution was collected by the IO vide order Ex. PW1/A.
10. The voice specimen result and result of RHW, LHW and RSPPW gave the positive test. As per the voice specimen report Ex.PW3/A the questioned voice in cassette sent for examination is the AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 7 probable voice of the same person whose specimen voice sample was submitted to the CFSL for comparison with questioned voice. Similarly regarding RHW, LHW and RSPPW the result Ex.PW2/A of the analysis gave the positive test for Phenolphthalein powder and Sodium Carbonate.
11. The CBI after completing the investigation filed charge sheet for the prosecution of the accused for the offences under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with 13 (1) (d) of PC Act 1988. The charge for the abovesaid offences was framed against the accused vide order dated 26.5.2003. Accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
12. To prove its case prosecution has examined 12 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Accused pleaded his false implication because of personal animosity as he called Raj Kumar employee of the complainant as Langda when he was pursuing the matter in the office of the DDA. Accused did not lead any defence evidence.
13. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that the complainant Alok Gupta supports the prosecution case completely. He has proved his complaint as Ex.PW4/A and has also deposed that demand of the bribe amount of Rs. 8000/- was made from him and he also proved that out of AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 8 this amount a sum of Rs. 3000/- was paid by him to the accused towards first instalment. This evidence of the complainant (PW-4) is also corroborated by both independent witnesses Mahinder Pal (PW-9) and S.K. Bhasin (PW-10) and also by TLO Inspector S.C. Bhalla (PW-11) and also Prem Chand (PW-8) Asst. Director DDA who was joined in the proceedings in post trap on the date of incident conducted in the office of DDA and he has supported and confirmed about the genuineness of such proceedings deposing that the proceedings were conducted in his presence.
14. It is submitted by Ld. PP that the evidence of complainant Sh. Alok Gupta (PW-4) proves that accused was having a motive of demanding bribe as he was the concerned dealing clerk in DDA office dealing with the file of converting his property from lease hold to free hold. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that CFSL result Ex.PW2/A of both of his hand wash and his pant pocket wash also supports the case of the prosecution and also the voice spectography result of CFSL Ex.PW3/A further confirmed the spot conversation of the demand of the bribe amount by the accused. It is submitted by the Ld. PP that all the prosecution witnesses confirm and support the case of the prosecution regarding the demand of bribe amount by the accused from the complainant and also proves that the bribe amount of Rs. 3000/- was handed over to the accused by the complainant and was accepted by AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 9 him and the evidence also proves that this amount of Rs. 3000/- was recovered from his pant pocket in the presence of the complainant and other members of the trap party including independent witnesses PW-9 Mahinder Pal and PW-10 S.K. Bhasin. It is submitted that the evidence bring home the charge against the accused and he should be accordingly held guilty and convicted.
15. On the other hand the Ld. defence counsel submits that in the present case the prosecution did not prove either the initial demand or the subsequent demand. At the same time the recovery of the amount of Rs. 3000/- as claimed has not been proved as the statement of the prosecution witnesses differs on the point of the place where the recovery was affected and also about the manner of the transaction. It is submitted that as per the case of the CBI Raj Kumar (PW-6) employee of the complainant was pursuing the matter and he has not supported the prosecution case at all that any demand of money as bribe was ever made by the accused from him or in his presence. It is submitted by the defence counsel that Ompal Singh (PW-7) has deposed that he was the concerned dealing assistant in the office of DDA and he was dealing in the matter of the complainant and as such there was no occasion for the accused to ask for the bribe amount from the complainant. According to the defence counsel accused had nothing to do with the matter of the complainant in the office of the DDA AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 10 and prosecution has failed miserably to prove that any demand of bribe was ever made by the accused from the complainant or from any person deputed by him.
16. This Court has gone through the case file and the submissions and also the case law produced in support by both sides.
17. As may be noted the complainant has proved his complaint Ex.PW4/A. In this complaint Ex.PW4/A it has been mentioned that on 13.6.2002 when complainant inquired from the accused working as Head Clerk/Dealing Clerk in LBA Housing Section at INA New Delhi accused made a demand of Rs. 8000/- for doing his job and after a lot of pursuation he agreed to accept Rs. 3000/-as first instalment. The complainant stand by his complaint in the witness box and he also stand by the correctness of the proceedings which are the part of the charge sheet against the accused in this case. He has confirmed that a sum of Rs. 3000/- was handed over by him to the accused in DDA office on 17.6.2002 and the same was recovered from him. In cross examination he has made a statement to the effect that this inquiry on 13.6.2002 was made by him from the accused on telephone.
18. The deposition of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) is further corroborated by independent witnesses Mahinder Pal (PW-9) AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 11 and S.K. Bhasin (PW-10) and S.C. Bhalla (PW-11) TLO in this case and also by Prem Chand (PW-8) Asst. Director DDA Office LBA Section.
19. There is no serious infirmity as sought to be raised by defence in the statement of either of the witnesses. The discrepancies sought to be raised in the course of the arguments are minor and insignificant and are only to be ignored. They do not caste any shadow of doubt on the incident of 17.6.2002 or regarding the allegations which are part of complaint Ex.PW4/A.
20. The correctness of the proceedings also find support from the statement of Prem Chand (PW-8). He is an independent witness from the office of DDA who was associated with post trap proceedings. His statement on the point of recovery of the amount of Rs. 3000/- from the accused in his presence and also of taking his hand wash and pant wash is unrebutted. He has been cross examined at length and nothing fruitful seems to have come out to caste any doubt that he was not present at the time of the proceedings on 17.6.2002 and these proceedings were not drawn in his presence and the same are not the correct proceedings.
21. Even CFSL result Ex.PW3/A of voice spectography and also hand wash and pant pocket wash results Ex.PW2/A supports the AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 12 prosecution case alongwith the transcription Ex.PW4/G of spot conversation which confirms to the involvement of the accused in the bribe deal with the complainant at DDA office on 17.6.2002.
22. So far as question of the statement of Raj Kumar (PW-6) is concerned even if he is not supporting the prosecution story in toto but still he has confirmed to the fact that he was pursuing the matter for Alok Gupta in DDA office for converting his flat no. 51-B from lease hold to free hold. He has also confirmed that on the date of incident he had come to the office of CBI alongwith the complainant Alok Gupta and Alok Gupta has made his complaint Ex.PW4/A in his presence. He has also confirmed that from CBI office he had come to the DDA office alongwith the trap team and went inside to call the accused and introduced the accused to his employer referring to the complainant Alok Gupta. So in this way the statement of PW-6 gives sufficient corroboration to the case of the prosecution. If there was no demand of money there was no occasion for the complainant to come to the office of CBI to lodge his complaint against accused demanding the bribe for converting his flat from lease hold to free hold. Both accused and the complainant are strangers. They do not claim to know each other before this incident. The only defence taken up in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C is that accused since called Langda to Raj Kumar (PW-6) who was an employee of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 13 pursuing a case in the office of DDA and for this reason he has been falsely implicated fails to inspire confidence in the correctness of the defence. It does not appeal to any logic or reason that someone would make a false complaint against a person for the reason that his employee has been called Langda in the office of DDA. The defence as such is filmsy and is only to be rejected.
23. In support the prosecution has been relying upon the judgment reported in Narendra Champaklal Trivedi and Ors. V. State of Gujarat 2012 VI AD (S.C.) 71. In this case the accused at the relevant time was working in City Survey Office Bhavnagar Gujarat and made a demand of the bribe amount of Rs. 50/- to supply a copy of the survey report of the property of the complainant. He was prosecuted and his conviction was affirmed by the Hon'ble High court and also by the Hon'ble Apex Court holding that appellant had made a demand of the bribe amount.
24. Similarly he has also been relying upon the judgment in the matter of Satish Chander V. CBI 2011 (4) C.C. Cases (HC) 599. The accused in this case was a police officer in Delhi Police. Both independent witnesses had turned hostile. Court based reliance on the testimony of the complainant and TLO convicted the accused holding that demand of bribe and its acceptance is proved.
AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 14
25. On the other hand the defence counsel has been relying upon Sunil Kumar Sharma V. State (CBI) 2007 (2) JCC 1315. In this case on appreciation of the fact that independent witness did not support the prosecution story it was observed that pre-requisites of a corruption case i.e. demand and acceptance have not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. The Court observed that non examination of the other witness who according to the prosecution case apprehended the accused creates a serious hole in the prosecution version. The Court held that prosecution has miserably failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond doubt. This case has no application in the instant case as not only the complainant but other independent witnesses are fully supporting the prosecution story and there is no reason to doubt the credibility of their evidence.
26. He has also been relying upon on Prem Raj Meena V. CBI 2011 (1) Crimes 730 (Del.) In this case on appreciation of the deposition of the complainant in his examination in chief and in his cross examination which was totally opposite to each other it was observed that it cannot be said that accused was in conscious possession of the tainted money recovered from the brief case and this recovery of the tainted money could not be taken as a proof for acceptance of tainted money by the accused. This case again has no AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 15 application to the facts of the instant case. The case relied upon was based on appreciation of the evidence in that case whereas in the instant case deposition of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) and also confirmed by the other independent witnesses shows that accused has consciously demanded and accepted the amount from the complainant which has been recovered from his possession. The complainant and also the other corroborative witnesses have withstood with the cross examination and defence has failed to find out any doubt about the worthiness of their statements.
27. He has also been relying upon Roshan Lal Saini V. CBI 2011 (1) JCC 102. It was held in this case that filing of complaint with CBI cannot be taken as a substitute for the evidence of proof of allegations contained therein. It was held that prosecution was required to prove the allegation made in the complaint by convincing evidence, which the prosecution has failed to do. This case has no application to the instant case. The complaint has been proved by deposition of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) and other depositions of the independent witnesses are also supporting to the deposition of the complainant. The explanation offered by the accused that he has been implicated falsely because of his calling Raj Kumar (PW-6) as Langda is unbelievable nor any such cross examination has been made by him on these lines of the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) who was the AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 16 competent witness to reply the same. He has not led any evidence in defence.
28. The accused has been relying upon Nepal Singh Rawal V. CBI 2011 (3) JCC 2278 (DHC). In this case the veracity of the voice identification was in question. The Court observed that such tape neither being sent to FSL nor sample of the voice of the accused taken. This judgment again has no application. The voice sample were taken in the present case and they were sent to the CFSL alongwith questioned voice cassette of the spot conversation and the same has been confirmed by the report of PW-3 Dr. Rajinder Singh who has proved his report as Ex.PW3/A.
29. The defence has also been relying upon Vishal Chand Jain @ V.C. Jain V. CBI 2011 (1) JCC 570 (DHC). In this case the complainant who was the only witness to the actual transaction was not supporting the case of the prosecution either on initial demand or on demand and acceptance of bribe. The recorded conversation cassette was also suspected in this case and the hand wash and pocket wash turning pink having been explained away by version of complainant himself to the advantage of the accused. Same is not the fact situation in the instant case and as such this judgment is not applicable to the case in hand. In the present case as may be seen first of all not only AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 17 the complainant but also other independent witnesses have been supporting the prosecution case, secondly the case is also corroborated by the CFSL results of hand wash and also pant pocket wash of the accused which have been proved as Ex.PW2/A and lastly the cassette of the spot conversation has been played in the Court in the course of the evidence of the complainant Alok Gupta PW-4 who has identified his voice in the cassette and has also deposed that the talks in the cassette are with the accused Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj. There is no cross examination to rebut this statement is not being a correct statement.
30. He has also been relying upon Prem Singh Yadav V. CBI 2011 (2) JCC 1059 (DHC). It was a case of corruption under Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) PC Act. The case contained the allegation of illegal gratification against the accused who had challaned the complainant twice. It was observed that though the accused did not led evidence in defence but from the cross examinations of prosecution witnesses he has satisfactorily discharged the onus laid upon him. It was found in this case that a suspicion arises against the prosecution case, more so, in view of the fact that complainant might be having a grudge against the accused for challaning him on previous occasions and it was held that it is difficult to hold that prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It was a case based on its own facts and as such AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 18 not applicable to the case in hand. The complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) has no reason to falsely implicate the accused. Both were strangers. The accused was apprehended at the spot. The recovery of the amount of Rs. 3000/- is not in doubt. No satisfactory explanation has been given by the accused to discharge the burden. This would raise a presumption under Section 20 of PC Act, 1988 qua his prosecution under Section 7 of the Act.
31. Lastly he has also been relying upon State of Punjab V. Sohan Singh AIR 2009 Supreme Court 1887. Accused was a Jr. Engineer in Electricity Board. The allegations against him were that he made a demand and accepted bribe for release of electricity connection to the complainant. The evidence shows that the accused has no role in release of connection. The plea of the accused was that the complainant had threatened him earlier and money was forcibly thrust in his pant. This was supported by defence evidence of tea stall owner and other defence witnesses. The independent witnesses of the raiding party were not examined without giving any reason. In this background the Court found serious discrepancies in evidence as regards to the events that have taken place prior to raid. It was held that prosecution even failed to prove demand by accused. This again is of no help of the defence in the present case. In the instant case the file Ex. PW4/E pertaining to flat of the complainant relating to the matter of conversion AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 19 of from lease hold to free hold was found on the office table of the accused. This file has been seized vide recovery memo Ex.PW8/A which bears signature of Sh. Prem Chand (PW-8) Asst. Director at point A. Though it is submitted by the defence counsel that Om Pal Singh UDC (PW-7) was the concerned dealing hand of the file and accused had nothing to do with the same but this submission is only to be rejected for the reason that PW-7 Om Pal Singh has made a statement that accused was working with him in the same branch and they used to sit in the same hall. In view of this position it was not difficult for the accused to lay his hand on the file concerned. Even otherwise there is no challenge to the recovery of the file made from the office table of the accused. The evidence of the complainant is convincing and reliable and it was a direct evidence showing that regarding this matter of conversation of the flat the complainant met the accused in DDA office on 17.6.2002 where the amount of Rs. 3000/- was handed over by him to the accused. This clearly proves that accused accepted illegal gratification from complainant for converting his flat from lease hold to free hold.
32. That the evidence produced by the CBI in the present case proves beyond doubt that accused being a Public Servant while working as Head Clerk in the office of DDA demanded a bribe of Rs. 8000/- on 13.6.2002 as illegal gratification from Alok Gupta as a motive or reward AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 20 for converting Flat No. 51-B, FP Block, Pitam Pura Delhi from lease hold to free hold and accused has accepted Rs. 3000/- as first instalment on 17.6.2002 and thereby is guilty for the offence under Section 7 of the PC Act, 1988. Similarly the evidence also prove that while working as a Public Servant accused on 17.6.2002 the accused while abusing his official position as a Public Servant obtained for himself pecuniary advantage of Rs. 3000/- as part payment of initial demand of Rs. 8000/- from the complainant Alok Gupta (PW-4) and is guilty of the offence under Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1)
(d) PC Act, 1988.
ORDER IS MADE ACCORDINGLY.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 21.2.2013.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS: DELHI AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 21 IN THE COURT OF RAJIV MEHRA SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) KARKARDOOMA COURTS : EAST DISTRICT DELHI RC No.38 (A)/02 AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI VERSUS Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj S/o Sh. Srikishan Bhardwaj R/o 364/A1, Chirag Delhi, New Delhi ORDER ON SENTENCE
1. The accused has been held guilty for the offence under Section 7 and 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act 1988. He was working as a public servant in the capacity of a dealing clerk in the AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 22 office of DDA, INA Vikas Sadan, New Delhi.
2. It is submitted by the Ld. defence counsel that accused is facing trial from last about 10 years. During this time he has been subjected to number of misfortunes. It is submitted that accused has developed a tongue cancer. He can't even feed properly to himself. He needs a constant attendant to take care of him. He has lost his job. These factors according to the defence counsel should be considered as mitigating factors relevant to decide the quantum of punishment. The Ld. defence counsel has also sought to draw sympathy submitting that he has a family consisting of his old mother aged about 85 years and two school going sons and a housewife. He is the sole bread earner of the family and any harsh punishment in the matter would effect him alone but to whole of his family.
3. On the other hand Ld. PP for the CBI submits that corruption is a serious matter and no lineancy to be shown in the matter to the accused. Civil society is affected by the offence in day to day affairs. There is rampant increase of corruption in every sphere which needs to be dealt with a firm hand.
4. The relevant provisions of the PC Act 1988 dealing with the aspect of the punishment for the offences under the Act prescribe for a AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 23 minimum sentence of six months for an offence under Section 7 of the Act which may be extended upto 5 years and also a fine left to the discretion of the Court. Similarly under Section 13 (2) read with 13 (1)
(d) PC Act the minimum sentence prescribed under the Act is one year extendable upto 7 years with fine left to the discretion of the Court. The putting of the minimum sentence for an offence under the provisions of PC Act 1988 shows the seriousness attached to the offences by Legislature in its wisdom.
5. The corruption at any level does not deserve any sympathy or lineancy as observed by the Apex Court in Narendera Champaklal Trivedi and Ors. V. State of Gujrat 2012 VI AD (SC) 71. In A.P. Vs. V.V. Vasudeo Rao (2004) 9 SCC 319 the Apex Court held that Protracted trial is not a mitigating factor.
6. This Court feels that the plea of family responsibilities cannot be allowed to be considered as a mitigating factor keeping in view the gravity of the offence. The accused definitely would come with one or the other such like grounds in each and every case if he is so permitted to raise these defences. As rightly pointed out the accused would have thought about his family responsibilities before getting involved into such act of corruption.
AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 24
7. In the present case the prosecution has proved that the accused has been apprehended at the spot. The recovery of the bribe amount has been affected from him and the prosecution has proved that he has accepted bribe to help the complainant to expedite the matter of converting of his property from lease hold to free hold.
8. The interest of justice would be adequately met if the accused is sentenced to undergo R1 for one year separately for each of the offences under Section 7 and under Section 13 (1) (d) PC Act 1988. The substantive punishment of custody incarceration would run concurrently and not sequentially. Accused is also imposed with fine of Rs. 5000/- in each of the two offences. This fine is to be paid by him separately and sequentially. In default of the payment of fine accused shall undergo for SI for 3 months separately for each of the two offences.
9. Accused be given benefit of Section 428 Cr.PC if any.
10. Copy of the judgment and also order of sentence be made available to him immediately free of cost.
11. ORDER IS MADE ACCORDINGLY. File be consigned to AC NO. 65/11/02 CBI Vs. Sushil Kumar Bhardwaj 25 record room.
Dictated and announced in the open Court on 23.2.2013.
( RAJIV MEHRA ) SPECIAL JUDGE CBI (PC ACT) EAST DISTRICT KKD COURTS: DELHI