Delhi District Court
State (Cbi) vs Devinder Kumar on 29 August, 2011
1
IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA
SPECIAL JUDGE03 CBI NEW DELHI DISTRICT,
NEW DELHI
CC No. 55/2011
RC No.DAI2005A0013/CBI/ACB/ND
In re:
STATE (CBI)
VS
DEVINDER KUMAR
S/O SH. BEGRAJ
R/O VILLAGE NOORPUR,
DISTRICT GHAZIABAD, UP.
APPEARANCES:
Mr. A. K. Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for CBI.
Mr. Anand Maheshwari, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
26.08.2011
JUDGMENT
1. Accused Devender Kumar S/o Sh. Begraj has been arraigned for trial by the State (CBI) on the charge of demanding a bribe of Rs. 1500/ on 01.03.2005 from complainant Ram Tirath S/o Lal Bahadur Singh and later accepting Rs.1200 as bribe on 02.03.2005 for ensuring uninterrupted supply of power/electricity to his canteen located in the ITO building.
State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.1/23 2 FACTS
2. The case of the prosecution is that this case was registered on the basis of written complaint Ex.PW4/A by Sh. Ram Tirath S/o Lal Bahadur (PW4) on the allegations that he was running a departmental canteen in the Income Tax Department, Drum Shape building at ground floor and accused Devender Kumar, Wireman, CPWD, I. P. Bhawan, ITO, New Delhi, had been harassing him by disconnecting the supply of electricity to his canteen from time to time and demanding Rs.1500 per month as bribe in lieu of maintaining regular supply of electricity. On the basis of the said complaint, the present RC Ex.PW 4/B was registered and investigation was entrusted to Inspector S. C. Bhalla (PW7) who constituted a trap party of CBI officials and two independent witnesses namely Sh. Om Prakash Mann(PW9 ) and Mr. Rajesh Kumar Dalal (PW6) both fireman NDMC, Palika Kendra, New Delhi and the verification of the demand was made by a tape recorded conversation Q1/A between the complainant and the accused as per the transcript Ex. PW4/H seized vide memo Ex. PW4/C.
3. It is the case of the State (CBI) that the pretrap proceedings were conducted and the complainant produced a sum of Rs. 1500/ in the denomination of fifteen currency notes of Rs.100; that the complainant and the witnesses were given State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.2/23 3 demonstration by applying phenolphthalein powder on the GC currency notes and independent witness Rajesh Kumar Dalal (PW6) was asked to touch the tainted notes with his right hand fingers and thereafter his hands were washed in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink; that the number of currency notes were noted down and personal search of the witnesses were taken and digital tape recorder was provided and the voice of the two independent witnesses were recorded and then transferred on to the two blank cassette make Sanyo ZC60 and the entire pretrap proceedings were recorded in the handing over memo Ex.PW 4/D; that the trap team left the office of the CBI at about 2:30p.m and reached the Drum Shape Building, IP Bhawan New Delhi; that independent witnesses Om Prakash was instructed to act as a shadow witness and oversee the transaction and overhear the conversation which might take place between accused and the complainant but when the accused was approached he informed the complainant that he had left the office for his residence and he would come back at 4:05p.m; that the trap team waited at the spot and later the complainant and the Om Prakash shadow witness informed Inspector S. C. Bhalla at 4.30 PM that accused had not taken bribe as he had to go somewhere who told them that he would collect the bribe on next day i.e 02.03.2005. Consequently, the tainted money were State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.3/23 4 taken back from the complainant and kept in the Malkhana along with the digital tape recorder and the cassettes resulting in preparation of concluding memo Ex. 4/E.
4. It is the case of the CBI that on the following day i.e 02.03.2005 pretrap proceedings were conducted again and explained to the complainant and the witnesses afresh; that a handing over memo Ex. PW4/F was prepared in continuation to the earlier proceeding dated 01.03.2005; that the trap team reached the canteen at the Drum Shape building at about 9:00 a.m; that witness Rajesh Kumar Dalal (PW6) was directed to shadow/accompany the complainant and oversee the entire transaction; that at about 11:00a.m accused Devender Kumar came inside the kitchen of the Canteen and demanded the bribe and the complainant handed over Rs.1200/ retaining Rs.300 with him telling the accused that he would pay Rs.300 later on; that the complainant came outside the canteen gave a predetermine signal by giving a missed call from the mobile no. 9811168365 to Inspector S. C. Bhalla on his mobile no. 981856886; that the members of the trap team who had taken position near the canteen converged on the spot but in the meanwhile accused Devender Kumar left the canteen and went towards right side of the canteen and was followed by the members of the trap; that the accused was not found in his room and could not be located but after 510 minutes the CBI officials State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.4/23 5 were told by PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal that accused was present in his room, that the trap party reached into the office of the accused where he was challenged of his having accepted bribe of Rs.1200/ from Ram Tirath which was denied by the accused; that the accused was held from his both hands and personal search of the accused was taken by independent witness Om Prakash but the tainted money was not found; that the hand wash of the accused with solution of sodium carbonate was taken which turned pink and the solution was transferred into two empty bottles ; that the accused on sustained interrogation disclosed that he had kept the money in a locker in the office at ground floor B wing of Y Shape building; that the locker in the steal almirah in the staff room of the building was opened by the accused and 12 GC notes of Rs.100 denomination were found kept in an old damaged polythene by sh. Rajesh Kumar (PW6) that are marked Ex. P1 to P12; that the hand wash of the inner side polythene as well as inner lining of the left side pocket of accused were taken afresh in the solution of sodium carbonate and both turned pink and that solutions were transferred separately in two empty glasses both marked Ex. PD and Ex. PF respectively. It is further the case of the CBI that three GC notes of Rs.100 denomination were taken from the complainant Ram Tirath that are marked Ex. P13 to P15; that the number of the GC State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.5/23 6 notes were tallied with the handing over Memo Ex.PW 4/F and the post trap proceedings were conducted in the presence of two officials from the CPWD and search cum seizure memo Ex.PW 4/G was prepared
5. Needless to state, the case of the prosecution is that the proceedings and documentation work was done at the spot; that site plan Ex. PW 6/A was prepared and the accused was arrested vide memo Ex. PW 10/A; and that after obtaining sanction for prosecution as per Section 19 of the PC Act the present charge sheet was filed.
CHARGE
6. The accused being a public servant was charged firstly for having demanded and accepted Rs.1200/ as illegal gratification from the complainant Ram Tirath on 02.03.2005 within the meaning of Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'PC Act'). The accused was secondly charged for using corrupt or illegal means for obtaining pecuniary advantage to the tune of Rs.1200/ from the complainant complainant Ram Tirath and thereby committing offences punishable under Section 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the PC Act, 1988. The accused pleaded not guilty to both counts of the charges and claimed trial. PROSECUTION EVIDENCE
7. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.6/23 7 12 witnesses. Three officials from the Income Tax Department were examined namely PW1 Rajinder Singh Sr. TA being the Caretaker of the Building; PW2 Pratap Singh, LDC and PW3 Sushma Sinha UDC were the members of the Canteen Committee, ITO..
8. Suffice to state that the three witnesses deposed that Ram Tirath was running a canteen in the Drum Shape building on the ground floor and PW1 and PW2 deposed that he complained to them that accused Devender Kumar, wireman was harassing him by disconnecting supply of electricity to his canteen and demanding bribe. However, PW3 Sushma Sinha did not support the prosecution case denying any knowledge about the incident except for the fact that she came to know that accused Devender Kumar was caught red handed while accepting bribe by the CBI;
9. PW4 was Ram Tirath, complainant and two independent witnesses was Rajesh Kumar Dalal (PW6) and Om Prakash (PW9). I shall dwell on their evidences later on in this judgment;. PW5 was Sh. Pyare Lal, Superintendent Engineer(E) Delhi Central Electric Circle II, CPWD, I. P. Bhawan, New Delhi, who deposed that he accorded sanction for prosecution against the accused on 20.08.2002 which is Ex.PW 5/A; PW8 was U. K. Ghosh who was posted as Jr. Enginner, IP Zone, ITO. He deposed that on 02.03.2005 he was present in his office when an official from CBI State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.7/23 8 came to him and informed that accused Devender Kumar working as Wireman under him was caught red handed while accepting bribe and official of the CBI along with some public persons came to his office where proceedings were conducted. He deposed signing recovery memo Ex.PW 4/G and also the site plan Ex.PW 6/A. He also deposed handing over the Attendance Register of the accused to the CBI indicating his attendance on 02.03.2005 which is Ex.PW 8/A. PW10 was Mr. Shanku Vasu Kuttan who was Assistant Engineer, CPWD in YShape Building, ITO, New Delhi. He was a witness to the post trap proceeding and deposed signing recovery memo Ex.PW 4/G site plan Ex.PW 6/A besides arrest memo of the accused Ex.PW 10/A. The witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution and was cross examined as he denied that Rs.1200/ was recovered in his presence from the locker in the staff room at the behest of accused Devender Kumar. However, he conceded that the hand wash and pocket wash were done in his presence and the solution turned pink; PW11 was Dr. Rajinder Singh. He deposed receiving four sealed parcels on 03.05.2005 containing audio cassette marked Q1 to Q3 which were the questioned audio cassette besides audio cassatte S1 which contained specimen voice of accused Devender Kumar. He deposed conducing auditory examination of the cassette in regard to their linguistic, phonetic and general spectrography and State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.8/23 9 gave a report Ex.PW 11/A giving opinion to the effect that the questioned cassette contained the voice of accused Devender Kumar. The questioned casettee were marked Ex.PB, PP and PU respectively.
10. The two police witnesses were the Trap Laying Officer PW7 S. C. Bhalla and PW12 Inspector Sehnawaz who was the Investigating Officer STATEMENT OF THE ACCUSED/DEFENCE EVIDENCE
11. On the close of the prosecution evidence all the incriminating facts and circumstances were put to the accused who denied the case of the prosecution and refuted that he demanded or accepted any bribe from the complainant. He denied the genuineness of the audio tape recording as well as correctness of the transcript Ex.PW 4/J in his defence. He stated that Ram Tirath was using heater in the canteen to prepare food items which was illegal ; that the SDO and the JE had made a surprise visit in the canteen and directed Ram Tirath not to use the heater to prepare food items and he disconnected the supply of electricity on the directions of his SDO and JE. The accused pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in this case.
12. I have heard Ld.Sr.PP for the State (CBI) and Ld.Defence Counsel for the Accused. I have perused the record carefully and minutely.
State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.9/23 10 SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION
13. As per evidence of UK Ghosh ( PW8) and Shanku Vasu (PW10) who were posted at the relevant time as Junior Engineer and Assistant Engineer respectively in the CPWD, the accused was posted as wireman in the Drum Shape Building, ITO, IP Bhawan, New Delhi. The sanction for prosecution was granted by Pyare Lal (PW5) who was working as a Superintending Engineer (Elec.) in the CPWD during the relevant time posted at IP Bhawan, New Delhi. Perusal of the sanction order dated 20.12.2005 Ex.PW5/A would show that the sanctioning authority went through the complaint filed by the complainant Ram Tirath (PW4) dated 21.02.2005 besides the documents delivered by the CBI prima facie evidencing that the accused was caught red handed for demanding and accepting bribe of Rs. 1,200/ from complainant Ram Tirath at about 11.35 AM on 02.03.2005. The sanction for prosecution has not been assailed by the ld. Defence counsel in any manner nor it discloses want of authority or non application of mind.
BACKGROUND OF THE COMPLAINANT.
14. Much mileage was sought to be drawn by ld. Defence counsel from the fact that PW 4 Ram Tirath had not been granted any written licence by the income Tax Department to run a Staff Canteen in the Drum Shape Building and that the complainant State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.10/23 11 Ram Tirath was consuming the supply of electricity in an unlawful manner without paying any charges. I am afraid such plea does not cut much ice in as much as it is deposed by PW1 Rajinder Singh who was the care taker besides PW2 Partap Singh and PW3 Sushma Sinha, who were the members of the Canteen Committee, that Ram Tirath PW4 had been allowed to run the departmental canteen to whom all the necessary infrastructure had been provided by the Income Tax Department. It is in the evidence of PW4 Ram Tirath that he had not executed any licence but he was mandated to provide foods at subsidized rates to the officials of Income Tax Department and the general public thronging the site.
DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE
15. The legal position which emerges regarding appreciation of evidence in a trap case can be summarized as under :
(i) The prosecution is mandated to prove the previous demand of bribe, its acceptance and the recovery of tainted money;
(ii) The demand can be proved by the testimony of the complainant as well from the complaint made by him if proved in accordance with law;
(iii) The conviction can be based on the sole testimony of the complainant but the court as a matter of prudence may look for corroboration;
(iv) A presumption as to the demand of bribe can also be drawn if the tainted money i.e. the money tendered as bribe money is recovered from the possession of the State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.11/23 12 accused, which presumption of course is rebuttable;
(vi) If the accused gives some defence it can be scrutinized by the test of preponderance of probability while the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt; and
(vi) However if the explanation given is false it may be used adversely against the accused and may strengthen the presumption under Section 20 of the Act.
16. Examining the facts of the instant case in the light of the said proposition of law, it is in the evidence PW4 was having problems in running the canteen for the irregular supply of electricity; that the accused used to disconnect the electricity to the canteen making it difficult for him to preserve the food items meant for daily use and in this regard he had complained to the JE (Elec.) CPWD besides some officers of the Income Tax. Both PW1 Rajinder Singh and PW2 Partap Singh corroborated that PW4 Ram Tirath had complained to them that he was being harassed by accused Devender Kumar who used to disconnect the supply of electricity to the canteen. Nothing is proved in defence by the accused that the supply was disconnected on the directions of the PW 8 J.E or the PW 10 A.E who were not even put any suggestions in this regard.
17. PW4 Ram Tirath then deposed that accused was demanding Rs.1500/ per month to maintain regular supply State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.12/23 13 to his canteen and in this regard he met him on 28.02.2005 and on 01.03.2005 . As the case goes, the complainant PW4 Ram Tirath lodged a complaint Ex.PW4/A and and the demand of bribe was confirmed in the tape recorded conversation contained in the audio cassette Q1/A (Ex.PB), the transcript of which was proved as Ex.PW4/H. Perusal of the transcript visavis hearing the audio record would show that the complainant very specifically indicated the demand of Rs.1500/ made by the accused and he requested the accused to reduce the amount of bribe but the accused refused reasoning that he was getting limited salary and moreover his share would be hardly Rs.300/ to Rs.400/ and the rest of it would go to his superiors; and it further brings out that the accused decided to meet the complainant at about 4.00 PM later in the day on 01.03.2005.
18. It is then in the evidence that Rs.1500/ were arranged by the complainant and the pre trap proceedings were conducted which were corroborated by PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal and PW9 Om Parkash Mann besides PW7 Inspector SC Bhalla and the handing over memo Ex.PW4/D was prepared; that when this trap was laid at about 4.00 PM on 01.03.2005, the accused came but refused to take the money. The tape recorded conversation vide cassette Q2/A Ex.PB led to State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.13/23 14 preparation of transcript Ex.PW4/I would show that complainant met the accused and attempted to hand over the demanded amount and but the accused gave excuse that he had to go to Kondli, (a place near Sonepat, Haryana to meet his uncle) later in the evening and showed his apprehension that he might lose the money and therefore he rather called the complainant to give him the money on the following day.
19. It is in evidence that the next day on 02.03.2005 at 9.00
- 9.30 AM pre trap proceedings were explained to the complainant and the witnesses and handing over memo Ex.PW4/F was prepared and the trap team reached Drum Shape Building at about 11.00 AM or so and took vantage position around the place. The complainant PW4 Ram Tirath deposed that he sat in the kitchen in the Drum Shape Building shown at point 1 in the site plan Ex.PW6/A alongwith PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal and at about 11.30 AM or so the accused came and demanded the bribe of Rs.1500/; that he only passed on Rs.1200/ to him with the request that he would give the rest of the amount later on, to which the accused agreed. PW4 Ram Tirath categorically deposed that the accused accepted the money, counted the same with both hands and kept the same in his pant's pocket. The said evidence was corroborated by PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal. It is State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.14/23 15 in evidence that the conversation between PW4 Ram Tirath and accused was tape recorded and the audio cassette Q3/A Ex.PU was proved in evidence and the complainant identified his voice as well as that of the accused and the transcript of the same was proved as Ex.PW4/J. The hearing of audio cassette visavis transcript Ex.PW4/J would show that accused met the complainant and asked him for the bribe money. The money was paid by the complainant telling the accused that it was Rs.1200/ and he would pay the remaining later on and he should bear with him. The accused said "DEY" and on this complainant said "DE DU . . . YEH LO GINO . . . YEH BARAH SOU RUPAYE HAIN. The accused replied "HAN BARAH HAIN". PW4 then said "TEEN TUMHE DE DUNGA JALDI MAT KARIYO . . . THIK HAI". The audio recording visavis transcript further indicates that accused after taking the money cautioned the complainant not to disclose about the payment to any one.
20. The said evidence clearly goes to suggest that accused was harassing the complainant and was demanding Rs. 1500/. At the cost of repetition, the demand was verified and it was further fortified in the failed trap proceedings on 01.03.2005. The events unfolded on 02.05.2005 clearly indicate that accused demanded the bribe and accepted Rs. State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.15/23 16 1200/ from the complainant. Mr. Maheshwari ld. Defence counsel urged that the prosecution has not explained why the complainant decided to bribe Rs. 1,200/ instead of paying the agreed amount of Rs. 1,500/ . Well this step was probably taken by PW4 on his own and I don't see how a little improvisation done by him could dent cracks in the prosecution case. There is further no merit in the plea that the specimen voice of the accused was not taken in the presence or by the orders of the Magistrate since the voice of the accused was categorically identified by the complainant without any defence challenge.
21. Much mileage was also sought to be drawn by the ld. Defence counsel from the fact that the accused was not apprehended at the spot and the tainted money was not found from his personal possession and that the evidence of the witnesses do not conform to broad human probabilities. Evidence of PW4 Ram Tirath and the evidence of PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal would show that accused soon after accepting the bribe went out of Drum Shape Building towards the Y Shape Building. The transcript Ex.PW4/J indicates that complainant immediately called Inspector NK Jain telling that the bribe money had been paid. At this moment, the shadow witness PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal had also given a signal. It State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.16/23 17 must be understood that the Drum Shape Building which is reflected in Ex.PW6/A is a very big place and it appears that there was a slight delay in giving the agreed signal given to the members of the trap team and due to public rush the members of the trap team were not able to descend immediately at the scene to apprehend the accused. There is no merit in the plea of Mr. Maheshwari, ld. Defence counsel that the complainant PW4 Ram Tirath and the shadow witness PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal should have attempted to apprehend the accused. Well, that was not planned and the two probably bonafidely believed that the other members of the trap team would be able to apprehend the accused. A successful trap inevitably requires the key players giving natural performance least it would arouse suspicion. Moreover, human behaviour and response to situation of emergency can not be predicted all the time.
22. The evidence of PW4 Ram Tirath supported by PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal besides PW7 Inspector SC Bhalla would show that the members of the trap team were not inside the canteen but stationed at point D,E,F & G besides H, I, J outside the Drum Shape Building. They were covering the three exits to the Drum Shape Building but for the fact that they did not know the physical description of the accused and State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.17/23 18 due to public rush they were not able to apprehend the accused as soon as they came out of building and went towards the YShape Building. PW4 Ram Tirath supported by PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal, PW9 Om Parkash Mann and PW7 S.C.Bhalla then deposed that they immediately went out to look for the accused but in vain and they came back to the staff room where after sometime the accused came, who was identified by Rajesh Kumar Dalal PW6. It is in evidence that the personal search of the accused was conducted by PW9 Om Parkash Mann but the tainted money was not found and therefore on sustained interrogation, the accused took the trap team to the Staff Room and the money was found kept in a polythene bag in the locker which was opened by the accused with his keys. Though no site plan of the said room was prepared, I do not see how or why the prosecution evidence be put to any doubt for the fact that the proceedings were conducted in the presence of PW8 UK Ghosh, JE and PW10 Shanku Vasu, AE.
23. It is pertinent to mention here that the version of PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal and PW9 Om Parkash Mann regarding the post trap proceedings is uncontroverted and unrebutted. Both PW8 UK Ghosh and PW10 Shanku Vasu besides PW6 Rajesh Kumar Dalal and PW9 Om parkash Mann deposed that State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.18/23 19 the hand wash of accused were taken in their presence in a solution of Sodium Carbonate, which turned pink and were marked Ex.RHW (Ex.PE) and LHW (Ex.PG) produced in the evidence and they all signed the memo Ex.PW4/G. It is also in the evidence of witnesses that the polythene in which the tainted currency notes were kept was also washed with some chemical which turned pink and the bottle was marked as PTBW (Ex.PD). The pant of the accused was also produced in evidence and the inner lining of the pant pocket Ex.PL was washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the same turned pink, which was transferred into a bottle and marked as LPPW (Ex.PL). Mere fact that the site plan of the room in which the locker was kept and/or no evidence was collected whether the locker was allotted in the name of the accused, are at the most mere investigating lapse which cannot obliterate the otherwise credible evidence brought on record by the prosecution. It is well settled that investigating lapse by itself cannot be a sole ground to discard the evidence which is otherwise credible and trust worthy. FINAL VERDICT
24. The sum result is that prosecution has been able to prove beyond reasonable doubt that accused demanded a sum of Rs.1500/ from the complainant and accepted Rs.1200/ on State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.19/23 20 02.03.2005 in oder to ensure uninterrupted supply of power to the staff canteen run by him, which money was recovered pursuant to his disclosure and seized vide memo Ex.PW4/G. The recovery of tainted money from a place in the knowledge and in the control of the accused invites presumption that he had accepted bribe. The presumption has not been rebutted by the accused. There is nothing to indicate that PW4 Ram Tirath had any grudge or ill will against the accused to falsely implicate him in this case.
25. In the said view of the discussion, the accused Devender Kumar is convicted of the offence u/s 7 and 13 (1)
(d) r/w (2) of the PC Act, 1988. Let the accused be heard on the point of sentence.
ANNOUNCED IN THE OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 26.08.2011.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03 (CBI) NEW DELHI State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.20/23 21 IN THE COURT OF SH. DHARMESH SHARMA SPECIAL JUDGE03 CBI NEW DELHI DISTRICT, NEW DELHI CC No. 55/2011 RC No.DAI2005A0013/CBI/ACB/ND In re:
STATE (CBI) VS DEVINDER KUMAR S/O SH. BEGRAJ R/O VILLAGE NOORPUR, DISTRICT GHAZIABAD, UP.
APPEARANCES: Mr. A. K. Mishra, Ld.Sr.PP for CBI. Mr. Anand Maheshwari, Ld. Counsel for the accused.
29.08.2011 ORDER ON THE POINT OF SENTENCE.
1. Heard on the point of sentence and perused the record.
2. Mr. Anand Maheshwari, Ld. Counsel for the convict submits that convict Devender Kumar is about 53 years of age and he has been under suspension since the date of incident. It is urged that he is the sole bread earner of his family and his family comprised of a marriageable daughter aged about 24 years and two sons one of whom is about 25 years but unemployed and other is studying.State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.21/23 22
It is urged that he hails from a poor strata of the society. It is, therefore, requested that a lenient view may be taken.
3. Per contra, Mr. A.K. Mishra, Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI has urged that no mitigating circumstances exists in this case so as to take a lenient view in favour of the convict and it is urged that maximum punishment be awarded under the law.
4. It bears repetition that the convict Devender Kumar was posted as Wireman in CPWD, ITO, New Delhi and he had been harassing the complainant by disrupting supply of electricity to the Staff Canteen. The convict demanded of Rs.1500/p.m. from the complainant to maintain regular supply to his canteen and accepted Rs.1200/ as bribe on 02.03.2005. At the same time, what also bears in my mind is that the complainant was also unauthorizedly running a Canteen without executing any lawful contract from the Income Tax Department. It appears from the tape recorded conversation and evidence of PW8 and PW9 that the convict was acting as a conduit to take bribe at the behest of the Senior Officials. Moreover, the convict in all probability shall suffer the penalty of dismissal from his service on this conviction. Anyhow, the punishment in corruption cases must be severe and deterrent one.
5. In the totality of the facts and circumstances of the case, I sentence the convict Devender Kumar to undergo rigorous State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.22/23 23 imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 7 of PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.10,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months.
6. I further sentence the convict Devender Kumar to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years u/s 13 (2) r/w 13 (1) (d) of PC Act and also pay fine of Rs.10,000/ in default to further undergo RI for a period of six months;
7. At this stage, an application is moved u/s 389 of Cr.P.C seeking suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Copy given to the Ld. Sr. PP for the CBI who has opposed the same.
8. Heard. The convict has been regularly appearing in the trial.
It is pointed out that the daughter of the convict is going to be engaged very soon. The convict appears to be full of remorse and regrets this unsavory incident in his life. The convict is admitted to bail on furnishing PB&SB in the sum of Rs.25,000/ with one surety in the like amount till 29.11.2011.
9. File be consigned to record room.
ANNOUNCED IN OPEN COURT TODAY: ON 29.08.2011.
(DHARMESH SHARMA) SPECIAL JUDGE 03,CBI NEW DELHI.
State (CBI) v. Devender Kumar Page No.23/23