Delhi District Court
State vs . Dharam Pal Singh on 26 July, 2012
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 11/12
Unique Case ID : 02401R0528742007
STATE VS. DHARAM PAL SINGH
S/o Late Sh.Hari Prasad Singh,
R/o Awodha Colony,
Subhash Nagar, Bareilly, U.P.
FIR NO. : 44/2006
U/S : 7/13 of Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988 & 25/54/59 Arms Act
P.S. : Anti Corruption Branch
Date of Institution 23.05.2007
Judgment reserved on 19.07.2012
Judgment delivered on 26.07.2012
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 13.06.2006 complainant Mohd. Shahid S/o Attaur Rehman went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW6/A regarding initial demand of bribe of Rs.50,000/ and later on agreeing for acceptance of part bribe amount of Rs.5,000/ by the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 1 of 49 accused Dharam Pal Singh who was working as SI in Special Investigating Staff, SP Office, Distt. Mainpuri, U.P. for helping the complainant in getting disposal of his case bearing FIR No. 360/05, U/S 384/511/504/506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Mainpuri, U.P. in his favour.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that one false case has been registered as against the complainant at Mainpuri and said case was being investigated by the accused Dharam Pal Singh who has been demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/ for disposal of said case. Said accused had come to the factory of the complainant on that day and reiterated his said demand of bribe with the threatening in case of nonpayment, he would get him implicated in several cases and under said constraint complainant could arrange part amount of Rs.5,000/ for which the accused had agreed to come and receive said amount at the factory of the complainant at 4257, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi on that day. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe, he went to Anti Corruption Branch and got his complaint lodged before the Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer PW11 in presence of Panch witness Rajpal Singh, PW7.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 2 of 49 has produced 10 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each before the Raid Officer PW11 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the pre raid proceedings Ex.PW6/B and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW11 gave demonstration to the Panch witness, complainant by getting touched the right hand of the Panch witness with that treated currency notes and wash of the right hand of the Panch witness in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink. Thereafter, said GC notes were handed over to the complainant and Panch witness was instructed to remain close with the complainant and to overhear the conversation between the complainant and the person demanding the bribe amount and to give signal by moving his right hand over his head twice after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given.
4. That at about 6:15 p.m., PW11 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, Inspector Santosh Kumar and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and reached near the spot, Gali Barna, Ilaka Sadar Bazar, Delhi. Government vehicle was parked at some distance, Inspector Santosh Kumar alongwith the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness went inside the factory of the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 3 of 49 complainant and the members of the Raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 7:15 p.m. on receiving the predetermined signal from Panch witness, Raid Officer alongwith the raiding team reached the spot where Panch witness informed that the accused had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5000/ from the complainant in his left hand and then he opened the button of his right side pocket of his shirt uniform with the help of right hand and then kept the same in the right side pocket of his shirt. Thereafter, Raid Officer after disclosing his identity challenged the accused that he had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.5000/ from the complainant and offered his search but accused declined. On his directions, Panch witness recovered bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the right side pocket of shirt uniform of the accused and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW6/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/C. The wash of left hand of the accused was taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 4 of 49 were sealed with the seal of HC and were marked as LHWI & LHW II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Thereafter, wash of upper right pocket of shirt of the accused was also taken in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into two empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of HC and were marked as RSPWI & RSPWII by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles, pullanda of shirt of accused and sample seal were taken into possession vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D. The Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW6/E and prepared rukka Ex.PW11/B and sent the same through Ct.Shaukat Ali to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called Inspector Santosh Kumar PW14, IO at the spot and handed over him the custody of the accused, case property and relevant documents etc. for purpose of Investigation. I.O. took up the Investigation, prepared the Site Plan Ex.PW14/A. IO recorded the statement of complainant and Panch witness, interrogated the accused and arrested the accused vide Memo Ex.PW6/F1. From the search of C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 5 of 49 accused one .9 MM pistol with holster of his uniform and from the briefcase of the accused, 29 live cartridges of .9MM and 3 live cartridges of .315 bore, one diary of accused, one case diary of FIR No.360/05, U/S 384/511/504/506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Distt. Mainpuri, Court Order of CJM Mainpuri, statement of Mohd. Shahid, Karnail Singh, cash amount of Rs.59,000/ and some other items were recovered from the briefcase of the accused which were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW14/B. Accused was got medically examined and was put in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, IO also seized copies of Biodata of the accused Ex.PW14/G, Posting Order of the accused Ex.PW14/H, Order Ex.PW14/J by virtue of which accused was entrusted Investigation of said case, Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, Sanction Order Ex.PW14/M U/S 39 of Arms Act etc. Relevant exhibits were sent to FSL for chemical analysis and later on FSL Report Ex.PW14/C and Ex.PW14/E were obtained. IO on recording the statement of the witnesses and after completion of the Investigation, prepared the chargesheet and filed in the court.
7. After compliance with the provision U/S 207 of Cr.P.C and after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 6 of 49 punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act was framed against accused on 05.11.2007 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
8. Thereafter, in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 18 prosecution witnesses namely ASI Ranjit Singh, a formal witness as PW1, Ct. Raju N., a formal witness as PW2, HC Surender, a formal witness as PW3, Ct.Mohan A.M., a formal witness as PW4, SI Bal Kishan, a Member of the Raiding Team as PW5, Mohd. Shahid, complainant as PW6, Rajpal Singh, Panch witness as PW7, HC Shaukat Ali, a formal witness as PW8, HC Satya Dev, a formal witness as PW9, Bijender Singh, a formal witness as PW10, Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer as PW11, Akhilesh Mehrotra, (Retd.) DIG, Sanctioning Authority against the accused as PW12, Ct. Santosh Kumar, a formal witness as PW13, Inspector Santosh Kumar, IO as PW14, Madhav Prasad Verma, the then Addl. SP, Mainpuri, a formal witness as PW15, Mahavir Singh, the then DCP, AC Branch, Delhi who has granted Sanction U/S 39 of Arms Act against accused, a formal witness as PW16, the then HC Raj Bahadur in PS Kotwali, Mainpuri, U.P., a formal witness as PW17 C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 7 of 49 and K.C.Varsheny, Assistant Director (Ballistic), FSL, Rohini as PW18.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which the accused denied about any demand and acceptance of the bribe from the complainant. Accused claimed to be falsely implicated in this case having no concern with the alleged offence.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. C.M.Sharma, Adv. Ld. Counsel for the accused and Sh.Vinod Kumar Sharma, Ld. Addl. PP for the State and perused the relevant record.
11. It is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Dharam Pal Singh is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Mohd. Shahid. It is further added by him that the complainant has falsely implicated this accused due to malafide motive and the complainant is not reliable being interested witness and is an accomplice. It is also added by him that the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A concerning this accused has been passed by the Sanctioning Authority mechanically without proper C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 8 of 49 application of his mind on the material on record and therefore, the said Sanction Order is legally invalid. It is further added by him that this accused Dharam Pal Singh was merely the Investigating Officer in the case bearing FIR No.360/05, U/S 384/511/504/506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Distt. Mainpuri as pending against the accused in the concerned Court and he was not competent for disposal of the said case in favour of the accused and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand and accept any bribe from the complainant. It is further added by him that there are several contradictions in the deposition of various PWs on different aspects and same falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that the Raid Officer being a police official is interested for success of his raid and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is also added by him that the complainant had already vacated the tenanted factory premises at 4257, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in February, 2006 and therefore, there was no demand and acceptance of the bribe from the accused by the complainant at said place on 13.06.2006. It is also added by him that the complainant has sent his Affidavit Ex.PW6/DA to the C.O. of the accused at Mainpuri and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. It is also added by him that despite availability of independent Panch witness, C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 9 of 49 none of them has been joined in the Raid Proceedings and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. Ld. Counsel thus urged for acquittal of this accused and referred and relied upon following judgments:AIR 2008 SC 106, 2000 Cr. LJ 4591, 1992 Cr. LJ 490, AIR 2003 S.C.2169, (2006) 1 SCC 401 and AIR 2007 S.C. 489.
12. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 18 PWs have clearly established its case as against this accused and therefore, the accused deserves to be convicted for the charged offence. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11/ Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer and PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11/ Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer and PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar/IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 10 of 49 the Sanctioning Authority, PW12 has passed the valid Sanction as against this accused after due appreciation of the relevant materials and therefore, there is no infirmity in the said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that mere discrepancy in the deposition of certain PWs as pointed out by Ld. Counsel for the accused are merely formal in nature and is because of the time gap between the period of incident and deposition of PWs in the court and the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown out merely on the said ground. Ld. Addl. PP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused for the charged offence and hence, he deserves to be convicted.
13. The first and foremost question having significant bearing on the fate of this case is whether prosecution has proved that valid Sanction has been accorded by the Competent Authority as against this accused as per Section 19 (1) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. During course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A concerning this accused has been passed by the Sanctioning Authority mechanically without proper application of his mind on the material on record and therefore, the said Sanction Order is legally invalid. To the contrary, C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 11 of 49 it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP on behalf of the State that the Sanctioning Authority, PW12 has passed the valid Sanction as against this accused after due appreciation of the relevant materials and therefore, there is no infirmity in the said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A.
14. That in order to prove the Sanction concerning this accused, the prosecution has examined PW12 Sh.Akhilesh Mehrotra (Retd.) DIG, who has categorically deposed that on 1.2.2007 he was posted as DIG, Agra Range, Agra, U.P. and being authority competent to remove the accused Dharam Pal Singh from service/office after examining carefully the material placed before him with regard to the act and allegation and circumstances of the case and after due application of mind, he accorded the Sanction U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 to prosecute accused Dharam Pal Singh vide Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A which bears his signature at point A. On the perusal of said Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A, it is clearly reflected that the necessary particulars regarding allegation against the accused for demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the complainant Mohd. Shahid on 13.6.2006 at Sadar Bazar, Delhi relating to the present case was duly found mentioned therein. In the cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel, said PW12 has denied C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 12 of 49 the suggestion that he has accorded the Sanction mechanically and without application of mind. From the perusal of the Sanction Order Ex.PW12/A, it is also reflected that all the relevant facts concerning the allegation as against the accused have been duly found mentioned therein.
15. In the case reported as 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 scrutinized 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.
16. Furthermore, in the case reported as 2004 (13) SCC 487, Shankar Bhai Lalji Bhai Vs. State of Gujrat, it was observed by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "So far as the question of Sanction is concerned, in the absence of anything to show that any defect or C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 13 of 49 irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
17. In the case reported in 2011 I AD (CRI.) (S.C.) 1, Kootha Perumal Vs. State (through) Inspector of Police, Vigilance & Anti Corruption, it was held in Para 14 by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India as under: "Keeping in view the aforesaid statement of law, it would not be possible to conclude that the sanction order in the present case was not valid. Ex.P2 with the present appeal is the copy of the sanction order. A perusal of the same would show that the sanctioning authority has adverted to all the necessary facts which have been actually proved by the prosecution in the trial. Upon examination of the material facts, the sanctioning authority has certified that it is the authority competent to remove the appellant from the office. It is specifically stated that the statements of the witnesses have been duly examined. Sanction order also states that the other materials such as copy of the FIR as well as other official documents such as the different mahazars were carefully C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 14 of 49 examined. Upon examination of the statements of the witnesses as also the material on record, the sanctioning authority has duly recorded its satisfaction that the appellant should be prosecuted for the offences, as noticed above. We, therefore, find no merit in the submission of the learned counsel that the sanctioning order to prosecute the appellant was not legal".
18. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgment and applying the same to the facts of the present case, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused to the effect that Sanction Order has been passed mechanically as I am of considered view that the Sanction concerning the accused Dharam Pal Singh has been validly granted by PW12 Sh. Akhilesh Mehrotra, the then DIG, Agra Range, Agra, U.P. who was competent to do so.
19. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that this accused Dharam Pal Singh is innocent and has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant Mohd. Shahid. It is further added by him that the complainant has falsely implicated this accused due to malafide C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 15 of 49 motive and the complainant is not reliable being interested witness and is an accomplice. It is also added by him that the complainant had already vacated the tenanted factory premises at 4257, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi in February, 2006 and therefore, there was no demand and acceptance of the bribe from the accused by the complainant at said place on 13.06.2006. It is also added by him that the complainant has sent his Affidavit Ex.PW6/DA to the C.O. of the accused at Mainpuri and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl. PP for the State that the prosecution has clearly established its case regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe as against this accused from the complainant through the deposition of PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11/ Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer and PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar/IO and there is no reason to disbelieve them. It is further added by Ld. Addl. PP that there is no reason as to why PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11/ Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer and PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar/IO would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against this accused by them.
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 16 of 49
20. In order to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the prosecution is found to have examined PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11/ Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer and PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar/IO. PW7 Rajpal Singh, Panch witness has clearly deposed before the court that on dated 13.6.2006 he was on duty as a Panch witness in the Anti Corruption Branch and complainant Mohd. Shahid got lodged his Complaint Ex.PW6/A bearing his signature at point B. Said PW7 has deposed that the complainant handed over 10 GC notes of Rs.500/ each to the Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer who recorded the serial numbers of those GC notes in PreRaid Proceedings and has also narrated about the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/B bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that at about 6:15 p.m. he alongwith the complainant, Raid Officer and other members of the raiding team left the Anti Corruption Branch in a vehicle for factory of the complainant at Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar, Delhi and reached nearby at about 6:45 p.m. and vehicle was parked at some distance. He further deposed that he alongwith the complainant went inside the factory of the complainant at First Floor and other members took suitable position at the Ground Floor. Accused was already found C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 17 of 49 sitting there. As regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused said PW7 Rajpal Singh, Panch witness has specifically deposed in this respect as under: "Accused asked the complainant about the bribe amount to that complainant told him that he was not able to arrange total amount and he has arranged only Rs.5000/. However accused insisted for giving Rs.50,000/. Thereafter complainant told the accused to accept Rs.5000/ and he further told him that he would pay the balance amount after arranging the same. Thereafter, complainant took out those treated GC notes from pocket of his shirt and gave them in the left hand of the accused which he kept in right front pocket of his uniform shirt."
21. Said PW7 Panch witness has further deposed that on his giving predetermined signal, Raid Officer and other members of the raiding party reached the spot and he informed him that accused had demanded and accepted bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the complainant and kept the same in right pocket of his shirt. He has also deposed about the recovery of said GC notes of Rs.5000/ from the accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 18 of 49 B. He also deposed about taking of left hand wash and wash of the right pocket of the shirt of the accused and transferring of the said washes in the bottles. He has also deposed that the recovered GC notes were taken into possession vide Memo Ex.PW6/C which bears his signature at point B. He has also deposed that the sealed bottles and the pullanda of the shirt of the accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/D which bears his signature at point X. He also deposed about the drawing the Post Raid Proceedings by the Raid Officer Ex.PW6/E which bears his signature at point B. He also deposed about the arrest of the accused vide Memo Ex.PW6/F1 and personal search of accused vide Memo Ex.PW6/F2 which bears his signature at point B. He also deposed about the seizure of the Revolver of the accused. He has also deposed about the seizure of 29 live cartridges, 3 live cartridges of .315 bore, Rs.59,000/ besides some papers etc. from the briefcase of the accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/F which bears his signature at point A. Said PW7 has duly identified said 10 GC notes in the denomination of Rs.500/ each as Ex.P1 to P10 as the same GC notes which were recovered from the accused. Said PW7 on seeing the labels of four sealed bottles mark LHWI & II, RSPWI & II, Ex.P11 to P14 deposed that same bear his signature at point B and same were prepared by the Raid Officer in C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 19 of 49 his presence. He has also identified the shirt of the accused as Ex.P15 and pullanda of the shirt as Ex.P15A. He has also identified the Pistol of the accused as Ex.P15B, 29 live cartridges of .9 MM as Ex.PW16/1 to 29 and 3 live cartridges of .315 bore out of which two are live and one is tested one as Ex.P17/1 to 3. Said PW7/Panch witness in his cross examination of Ld. Defence Counsel has admitted the suggestion that the factory of the complainant is situated in a congested area and added that it was near Main Road. Said PW7 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has specifically denied the suggestion that accused has neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount from the complainant or that the GC notes were not recovered from the possession of the accused. He also denied the suggestion that the entire proceedings were conducted at Anti Corruption Branch as said PW7 has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that I had not visited the spot. It is wrong to suggest that accused neither demanded nor accepted the bribe amount. It is wrong to suggest that GC notes was not recovered from the possession of the accused. The seal remained with the Raid Officer. The Raid Officer handed over the bottles and the exhibits including the GC notes to Insp. Santosh Kumar at the spot. It is wrong to suggest that C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 20 of 49 entire proceedings were conducted at Anti Corruption Branch. I have not participated in any other raid. It is wrong to suggest that I am deposing at the behest of police officials."
22. PW6/Mohd.Shahid, complainant has clearly deposed before the court that in the year 2006 he went Anti Corruption Branch and met Inspector Santosh Kumar and lodged one Complaint Ex.PW6/A which bears his signature at point A in presence of Panch witness. He further deposed that one false case was registered against him at District Mainpuri, U.P. and accused was Investigating Officer of that case and had been demanding bribe of Rs.50,000/ from him. The accused has agreed to take initially Rs.5000/ and balance amount of Rs.45,000/ afterwards. He also deposed that he produced 10 GC notes of Rs.500/ each before the Raid Officer who recorded the serial numbers of the same in PreRaid Report Ex.PW6/B and also narrated about PreRaid Proceedings as drawn by the Raid Officer which is Ex.PW6/B bearing his signature at point A. He also deposed that at about 5:30 to 6:00 p.m. he alongwith Panch witness, Raid Officer and other members of the Raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch in a govt. vehicle for his factory at 4257, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar and reached there within 45 minutes. He further deposed that he alongwith C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 21 of 49 Panch witness went inside First Floor of the factory and other members of the Raiding team took suitable position at Ground Floor and accused was found sitting there. Said PW6 as regards the demand of bribe of Rs.5000/ by the accused has specifically deposed as under: "Accused demanded bribe amount from me. I told the accused that I had only Rs.5000/. Accused demanded entire bribe of Rs.50,000/. I told accused that I would arrange Rs. 45000/ within half an hour and thereafter accused asked me to hand over Rs.5000/ as he wanted to go for shopping. Then I handed over Rs.5000/ to him."
23. Said PW6/complainant has also deposed about recovery of said bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the accused which was seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point A. He also deposed about taking of the hand wash and shirt pocket wash of the accused and transferring them into bottles and taking into possession said sealed bottles and pullanda of shirt of accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D bearing his signature at point A. He also deposed about drawing of the Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/E by the IO which bears his signature at point A. He also deposed C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 22 of 49 regarding arrest of the accused vide Arrest Memo Ex.PW6/F1 and his Personal Search vide Memo Ex.PW6/F2. He also deposed regarding seizure of one Pistol of .9 MM, 29 live cartridges, 3 live cartridges of .315 bore besides some money and papers vide Ex.PW6/F. Said PW6 has duly identified said 10 GC notes in the denomination of Rs. 500/ each as Ex.P1 to P10 as the same GC notes which were recovered from the accused. Said PW6 on seeing the labels of four sealed bottles mark LHWI & II, RSPWI & II, Ex.P11 to P14 deposed that same bear his signature at point A and same were prepared by the Raid Officer in his presence. He has also identified the shirt of the accused as Ex.P15 and pullanda of the shirt as Ex.P15A. He has also identified the Pistol of the accused as Ex.P15B, 29 live cartridges of .9 MM as Ex.PW16/1 to 29 and 3 live cartridges of .315 bore out of which two are live and one is tested one as Ex.P17/1 to 3.
24. Said PW6/complainant in his cross examination by Ld. Addl. PP added that he went Anti Corruption Branch on 13.6.2006. He also admitted to be correct that he has stated in his Complaint Ex.PW6/A, accused had threatened him that in case he would not pay bribe to him then he would involve him in number of the cases and C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 23 of 49 under duress he agreed to pay bribe to him. He also admitted to be correct that accused has accepted the bribe from his left hand and kept the same in right pocket of his shirt. He also admitted to be correct that bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the accused by the Panch witness.
25. Said PW6/complainant in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has added that he had taken the factory on rent from Karnail Singh and used to make reels for thread and though initially stated that he had vacated the factory in February, 2006 but subsequently clarified that he had vacated the factory after Raid. Said PW6 though admitted that Ex.PW6/DA bears his signature and thumb impression and his photograph but same were obtained forcibly. He also denied the suggestion that said document has been prepared by him with his own free will and same was sent by him to the official of accused. He also denied the suggestion that he has sent any such Affidavit in August 2007 to the C.O. of the accused. Furthermore, the said stand of the accused is also found falsified in view of the fact that said Affidavit Ex.PW6/DA has not been produced from the Office of C.O. of the accused from Mainpuri nor bear any receipt of said Office but has been produced by the accused through his Counsel in the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 24 of 49 cross examination of PW6/complainant and same can be of no help for the accused.
26. Said PW6 in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel has specifically denied the suggestion that the accused has never demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant or that no amount was recovered from the accused in his presence as he has deposed in this respect as under: "It is wrong to suggest that accused could not have help me as already proceedings U/s 82/83 were initiated against me. It is wrong to suggest that accused never demanded bribe from me nor accepted the same. It is wrong to suggest that no amount was recovered from the accused in my presence. It is wrong to suggest that the proceedings were not prepared in my presence. I have not sent any affidavit in August 2007 to the CO of the accused."
27. The material part of the deposition of PW7 Panch witness and PW6/complainant also found corroborated from the deposition of PW11 Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer. PW11 Hem Chand, Raid Officer is found to have deposed regarding lodging of the complaint Ex.PW6/A by the complainant in the presence of Panch witness C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 25 of 49 Rajpal Singh on dated 13.06.2006 and thereafter, the preraid proceeding Ex.PW6/B was carried out by him. Said PW11 further deposed that at about 6:15 p.m. he alongwith the complainant, Panch witness and other members of raiding team left Anti Corruption Branch and reached Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar and parked vehicle at some distance and Inspector Santosh Kumar and Driver remained in the vehicle. He further deposed that complainant and Panch witness went inside the factory of the complainant at 4257, Gali Barna, Sadar Bazar and he alongwith other members of raiding team took suitable position. He further deposed that at about 7:15 p.m. on receiving the predetermined signal given by Panch witness, he alongwith raiding team reached the spot i.e. First Floor of the factory of the complainant and he was informed that the accused had demanded and accepted Rs.5000/ as bribe from the complainant with his left hand and then kept in his right side pocket of his shirt. He also deposed that on his instruction Panch witness recovered the bribe amount of Rs. 5000/ from the accused and on checking, the numbers of the recovered GC notes found tallied with the numbers as noted in preraid report. He also deposed that GC notes were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/C bearing his signature at point C and that of Complainant at point A and that of Panch witness at point B. He also deposed about C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 26 of 49 the postraid proceeding Ex.PW6/E bearing his signature at point C and seizure of the four bottles containing both left hand wash and wash of right pocket of shirt of the accused vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/D bearing his signatures at point B and that of Complainant at point A and that of Panch witness at point X1. He has clearly identified the said recovered GC notes as Ex.P1 to P10, four sealed bottles mark LHWI & II and RSPWI & II containing left hand wash and right pocket wash of shirt of the accused as Ex.P11 to P14, shirt of accused is Ex.P15 and shirt pullanda as Ex.PW15A. Said PW11/Raid Officer in his cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel had denied the suggestion that he had not conducted the Raid nor effected any recovery at the spot or that the proceedings has not taken place at the spot.
28. From the perusal of the deposition of PW6/complainant, PW7/Panch witness and PW11/Raid Officer, it is clearly reflected that the Raid Officer, PW11 the then Inspector Hem Chand has drawn the Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/E which found bear the signature of the PW6/complainant at point A and that of PW7/Panch witness at point B and that of the PW11/ Raid Officer at point C. C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 27 of 49
29. I am of the considered view that said Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/E being in the nature of Panchnama which is duly signed by the complainant and Panch witness is duly admissible and reference can be made to the case of Santa Singh vs. State of Punjab AIR 1956 Supreme Court 526 wherein it was held that mere presence of the police officer when a statement is made does not by itself render such a statement inadmissible. So long as a panchnama is a mere record of the things heard and seen by panchas and does not constitute a statement communicated to a police officer in the course of investigation by him and it would not fall within the mischief of section 162 of the Code.
30. From the perusal of the said Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/E, it is clearly reflected that the accused Dharam Pal Singh had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.5000/ from the complainant and said amount has been recovered by the Panch witness from the right pocket of the shirt of the accused Dharam Pal Singh and the serial number of those GC notes found tallied with the serial number as mentioned in the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/B and said recovered GC notes were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/C. C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 28 of 49
31. It is also revealed from the record that left hand wash and right pocket of shirt wash of accused with colourless solution of sodium carbonate were taken and the same turned into pink colour and said wash vide Ex.LHWI and RSPWI gave positive test for the presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate as per FSL Report Ex.PW14/C which establish that the said treated 10 currency notes of Rs.500/ each were handled and accepted by the accused and same were recovered from him.
32. In view of the above material as available on record, I am of the considered view that the factum regarding the demand and acceptance of bribe of Rs.5000/ by the accused from the complainant have been found established from the deposition of PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant, PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness, PW11 Inspector Hem Chand, Raid Officer coupled with the content of Complaint Ex.PW6/A, Seizure Memo of the GC notes Ex.PW6/C, Seizure Memo of four bottles marked as Ex.LHWI&II, RSPWI & II and pullanda of shirt and sample seal vide Ex.PW6/D, Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW6/E.
33. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 29 of 49 Counsel that this accused Dharam Pal Singh was merely the Investigating Officer in the case bearing Fir No.360/05, U/S 384/511/504/506 IPC, PS Kotwali, Distt. Mainpuri as pending against the accused in the concerned court and he was not competent for disposal of the said case in favour of the accused and therefore, there was no occasion on the part of this accused to demand and accept any bribe from the complainant. As regards the demand of bribe of Rs. 5000/ by the accused, PW6/complainant has specifically deposed as under: "Accused demanded bribe amount from me. I told the accused that I had only Rs.5000/. Accused demanded entire bribe of Rs.50,000/. I told accused that I would arrange Rs. 45000/ within half an hour and thereafter accused asked me to hand over Rs.5000/ as he wanted to go for shopping. Then I handed over Rs.5000/ to him."
Said PW6/complainant has also deposed that as he was against giving of bribe so he went to Anti Corruption Branch and lodged his Complaint Ex.PW6/A which bears his signature at point A, in presence of Panch witness before Inspector Santosh Kumar, Raid Officer.
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 30 of 49
34. Besides this, law is well settled that it does not matter whether the public servant was competent to do the work or not and reference can be placed in the case reported as Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel Vs. State of Gujrat, 1976(3) SCC 46 as referred in State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. C. Uma Maheshwar Rao and Anr. 2004, V AD (SC) 176, wherein it has been held by Hon'ble Supreme Court of India that the question whether a person has an authority to do the act for which bribe is accepted, is of no consequence. In the case reported as Gopal Singh Vs. CBI, ILR (2005) II Delhi 35, It was observed by the Hon'ble Delhi High Court in Para 22 as under: "It has to be added that in cases under PC Act, the prosecution is under no obligation to prove that a public servant demanding bribe was in a position to help the person from whom the bribe was being demanded. The prosecution succeed the moment it is shown that a public servant had accepted some money from someone which was not legal remuneration. The presumption U/S 20 of the Act comes into play shifting the burden upon the public servant to explain as to why he had received the money. A public servant may misguide, mislead or befool his victim to pay him illegal C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 31 of 49 gratification knowing fully well that he is not in a position to help him and as such it can be no defence for him to say that since he was not in a position to help the complainant/victim the money received by him does not amount to illegal gratification."
35. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the complainant has falsely implicated this accused due to malafide motive and the complainant is not reliable being interested witness and is an accomplice. So far as the contention of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the statement of complainant being an accomplice cannot be acted upon without corroboration is concerned it is appropriate to refer to the case of Dewan @ Vasudeva and etc. V/s The State 1988 Crl. L.J. 1005 where it was held by Hon'ble High court of Kerala as under : ''True, the person who pays the gratification is, in a way, an accomplice in the offence, when his role is viewed from a wide angle. But before his evidence is dubbed as unworthy of credit without corroboration, a pragmatic or realistic approach has to be made C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 32 of 49 towards such evidence. If the bribegiver voluntarily goes to the offender and persuades him to accept the bribe, his position is that of an undiluted accomplice and it is a rule of prudence to insist on independent corroboration such evidence. On the other hand, if the giver of gratification was persuaded to give it, he actually becomes a victim of persuasion by the offender. To name him an accomplice and to reject his testimony due to want of corroboration, would sometimes, be unrealistic and imprudent. The court must always bear in mind that insistence on corroboration for the evidence of accomplice is not on account of any rule of law, but is a caution of prudence. The density of the stigma to be attached to a witness as an accomplice depends upon the degree of his complicity in the offence. Suspicion towards his role as an accomplice should vary according to the extent and nature of his complicity. It must be considered in each case whether the bribe giving or payment of gratification was done in such a way that C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 33 of 49 independent persons had no occasion to witness such acts. ''
36. Furthermore, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M. O. Shamshuddin V/s State of Kerela 1995 ( 2 ) Crimes 284 considered the aspect and the Hon'ble Supreme Court in para 11 has held as under : "Now confining ourself to the case of bribery it is generally accepted that the person offering a bribe to a public officer is in the nature of an accomplice in the offence of accepting illegal gratification but the nature of corroboration required in such case should not be subjected to the same rigorous tests which are generally applied to a case of an approver. Though bribe givers are generally treated to be treated in the nature of accomplices but among them there are various types and gradation In case under the Prevention of corruption Act the complainant is the person who gives the bribe in a technical and legal sense because in every trap case whereever the complainant is filed there must be a person who has to give money to the accused which in fact is the bribe money which is C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 34 of 49 demanded and without such a giving the trap cannot be succeed. When there is such a demand by the public servant from a person who is unwilling and if to do public good approaches the authorities and lodges complaint then in order that the trap succeeds he has to give the money. There could be another type of bribe giver who is always willing to give money in oder to get his work done and having got the work done he may send a complaint. Here he is a particeps criminis in respect of the crime committed and thus is an accomplice. Thus there are grades and grades of accomplices and therefore a distinction could as well be drawn between cases where a person offers a bribe to achieve his own purpose and where one is forced to offer bribe under a threat or loss or harm that is to say under coercion. A person who falls in this category and who becomes a party for laying a trap stands on a different footing because he is only a victim of threat or coercion to which he was subjected to. Where such witnesses fall under the category of "accomplices' by reason of their being bribe givers, in the first instance the court has to consider the degree of complicity and then look for corroboration if necessary as a C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 35 of 49 rule of prudence. The extent and nature of corroboration that may be needed in a case may vary having regard to the facts and circumstances".
From the deposition of PWs, it is clearly reflected that the deposition of complainant/PW6 regarding the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from the complainant is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness who has specifically deposed in this respect as under: "Accused asked the complainant about the bribe amount to that complainant told him that he was not able to arrange total amount and he has arranged only Rs.5000/. However accused insisted for giving Rs.50,000/. Thereafter complainant told the accused to accept Rs.5000/ and he further told him that he would pay the balance amount after arranging the same. Thereafter, complainant took out those treated GC notes from pocket of his shirt and gave them in the left hand of the accused which he kept in right front pocket of his uniform shirt."
Besides this, the deposition of the PW6/complainant regarding the recovery of the tainted GC notes of Rs.5000/ from the right side pocket of the shirt of the accused and seizure of the said GC C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 36 of 49 notes vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW6/C are found corroborated from the deposition of PW7/Panch witness as well as PW11/Raid Officer. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused for not relying upon the deposition of the complainant in this respect.
37. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that there are several contradictions in the deposition of connected PWs on various aspects which falsify the case of the prosecution and pointed out following contradictions: (A) That PW5 SI Bal Kishan stated that bribe money was got recovered from the accused through Panch witness by the Raid Officer whereas PW6/Mohd. Shahid deposed that Raid Officer recovered the bribe money from the accused and PW11/Inspector Hem Chand stated that on his instructions, Panch witness recovered bribe amount from the shirt of the accused.
(B) That PW7/Rajpal Singh stated that the seal remained with the Raid Officer whereas PW11/ Raid Officer stated that he has delivered the seal after use to the Panch witness.
(C) That PW8 HC Shaukat Ali stated that only Driver remained in the vehicle and remaining persons came at the spot but PW11/Raid C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 37 of 49 Officer stated that Inspector Santosh Kumar and Driver remained in the vehicle.
(D) That PW6/complainant stated that he met Raid Officer at about 4:30 p.m. whereas PW11/Raid Officer stated that complainant met him at about 55:05 p.m.
38. I do not find any force in the aforesaid submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in view of the fact that said contradictions appear to be on formal aspects and cannot be treated as unnatural because of the time gap between the period of incident and the deposition of the PWs before the court. My said view is also found supported from the law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarding contradictions in case of Bharuda Broginbhai Harjibhai V/s State of Gujrat AIR 1983 SC 753 wherein it was held that discrepancies which do not go to the root of the matter and shake the basic version of the prosecution should not be attached undue importance.
39. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as the Raid Officer being a police official is an interested witness for success of his raid and therefore, his C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 38 of 49 deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused in this respect. Reference is placed on case of Hazari Lal V/s State ( Delhi Admn ) AIR 1980 Supreme Court 873. 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 his nor accepted the amount. The punch witness who went along with the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 39 of 49 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 as under: "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."
40. Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474 State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supreme C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 40 of 49 Court of India that the evidence of trap officer in a bribe case can be acted upon even without the help of any corroboration and similar view was held in the judgment "Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
41. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that despite the availability of independent public witness at the neighborhood of the spot, the Raid Officer had not joined any of them in the raid proceedings and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. I am of the considered view that since the Raid Officer had already joined PW7/Panch witness, Rajpal Singh in the raid proceedings, nonjoining of any other public witness available at the neighborhood cannot be over emphasized. My said view is also found supported from the judgment reported as 2011 V AD (DELHI) 500, Anna Wankhade Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation (Through State), wherein it was held in Para 21 as under: "21. There is no dispute with regard to the proposition regarding desirability of association of independent witnesses by the police so as to lend more credence and authenticity to the case, but there is also no dispute that nonassociation of the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 41 of 49 independent witnesses per se for any reason whatsoever was in itself not enough to discard the prosecution witnesses or throw away the case as a whole. In the present case, CBI associated two independent witnesses on the written requisition made to the office of NDMC. Since the prosecution/CBI already had two independent witnesses, who had been informed and apprised about the technicalities involved in the procedure during the trap proceedings, it was not necessary for the IO to have joined other public witnesses at the time of apprehension. May be to avoid the risk of such a raw public person getting won over or being unable to understand the proceedings at the last moment of raid, that the IOs usually avoid associating public witnesses at that stage in such type of cases."
42. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that the alleged recovery of the treated GC notes as against the accused Dharam Pal Singh is not sufficient to convict the accused for the charged offence. Once the accused is found to have accepted the bribe amount, it is for him to explain as to in which capacity he has accepted the same.
C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 42 of 49
43. Three Judges Bench of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case reported as Raughbir Singh V/s State of Punjab AIR 1974 SC 1516 held that very fact that the accused was in possession of marked currency notes against an allegation that he demanded and received the amount is "res ipsaloquitur".
44. In the case of Dhanvantrai Balwantrai Desai V/s State of Maharashtra, AIR 1964 Supreme Court 575 it was held as under: "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 C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 43 of 49 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."
45. Furthermore, it is also useful to refer to the decision of Hon'ble Supreme Court in case of M.Narsinga Rao V/s State of A.P. 2001 (1) SCC 691 rendered by Three Hon'ble Judges of Supreme Court. In that case accused demanded a bribe of Rs. 500/ from a milk transporting contractor for recommending the payment of an amount due to the contractor. The accused was caught red handed while accepting the bribe amount. Accused took the plea that currency notes were stuffed into his pocket. During trial complainant and panch witness did not support the prosecution case and it was argued before Hon'ble High Court that it is not possible to draw any presumption against the delinquent public servant in the absence of direct evidence to show that the public servant demand bribe. The Hon'ble High Court held as under: "It is true that there is no direct evidence in this case that the accused demanded and accepted the money. But the rest of the evidence and the circumstances are C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 44 of 49 sufficient to establish that the accused had accepted the amount and that gives rise to a presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act that he accepted the same as illegal gratification, particularly so, when the defence theory put forth is not accepted."
46. Furthermore, in another case reported as B. Noha V/s State of Kerela & Another 2006 VI AD ( Criminal ) 465 ( SC ) it was held in para 10 as under: "that when it is proved that there was voluntary and conscious acceptance of the money, there is no further burden cast on the prosecution to prove by direct evidence, the demand or motive. It has only to be deducted from the facts and circumstances obtained in the particular case." Moreover, in another case reported as State of AP Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy 2000 (9) SCC 752 it was held that when the amount is found to have 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 herein.
47. Once the bribe amount is recovered from the accused it is for the accused to explain as to how the bribe amount landed in his C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 45 of 49 person. In the present case, the accused Dharam Pal Singh has merely taken a evasive stand in his Statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. to the effect that no such recovery was effected from him and therefore, same can be of no help for the accused, specifically when there is ample material on record in the form of deposition of PW6/complainant, PW7/Panch witness and PW11/Raid Officer coupled with seizure memo of bribe amount of Rs.5,000/ vide Memo Ex.PW6/C whereby establishing the recovery of said bribe amount from the right pocket of shirt of the accused.
48. In view of the aforesaid materials as available on the record, I am of the considered view that the presumption as contemplated U/S 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1988 could not be rebutted by the accused and the judgment as referred and relied by Ld. Counsel for the accused can be of no help for the accused being not applicable in view of the above referred clinching material relating to the demand and acceptance of bribe amount of Rs.5000/ by the accused Dharam Pal Singh.
49. From the perusal of the record, it is also reflected that this accused has been charged for offence punishable U/S 25/54/59 Arms C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 46 of 49 Act for having possession of 3 live cartridges of .315 bore without any license. PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar, IO has deposed regarding the recovery of said 3 live cartridges from the accused as under: "From the search of accused Dharampal, one .9 MM pistol no. 16389177 (2004) with holster of his uniform and from the brief case of the accused 29 live cartridges .9 MM make KF and 3 live cartridges .315 bore were recovered and same were converted with the sealed parcel with the seal of SKS................................."
50. The deposition of PW14 Inspector Santosh Kumar, IO regarding aforesaid recovery from the accused at the spot on 13.6.2006 is also found corroborated from the deposition of PW6/Mohd. Shahid, complainant and PW7/Rajpal Singh, Panch witness and PW5/SI Bal Kishan and they have identified said pistol as Ex.P15B, 29 live cartridges of .9 MM as Ex.P16/1 to 29 and 3 cartridges of .315 bore out of which two are alive and one is testfired as Ex.P17/1 to 3.
51. PW14/Inspector Santosh Kumar, IO has also deposed that Letter Ex.PW12/B issued by SP Mainpuri regarding arms and C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 47 of 49 ammunition issued to accused Dharam Pal Singh, was received through Dak in A C Branch and as per said Letter, accused Dharam Pal Singh was issued one .9 MM pistol with 30 cartridges of .9 MM on 13.5.2006. Said deposition of PW14 is also found corroborated from the contents of the Letter dated 01.12.2006 as issued by SP Mainpuri as addressed to the IO, which is Ex.PW12/B. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C. has taken the bare plea that said 3 cartridges of .315 bore were planted upon him but I do not see any reason as to why the same would be falsely planted upon the accused and even otherwise said plea of the accused is found negated from the deposition of PW5/SI Bal Kishan, PW6/complainant, PW7/Panch witness, PW14/IO. FSL Report relating to said 3 cartridges is Ex.PW14/E. Thus, it is established that the accused was found in unauthorised possession of said 3 live cartridges of .315 bore on dated 13.06.2006 at the spot at the time of his arrest and Sanction Order Ex.PW14/M has been duly passed U/S 39 of Arms Act, 1959 for prosecution of the accused U/S 25/54/59 Arms Act. In view of the same, prosecution has also established the offence punishable U/S 25 Arms Act as against this accused.
52. The net result of the aforesaid discussion is that the C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 48 of 49 prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused Dharam Pal Singh for the charged offence. Hence, accused Dharam Pal Singh stands convicted for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and for offence punishable U/S 25 Arms Act, 1959.
53. Let this accused be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 26th day of July, 2012 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 11/12 Page No. 49 of 49