Delhi District Court
State vs . Prem Raj Sharma on 16 November, 2011
IN THE COURT OF SHRI B.R. KEDIA, SPECIAL JUDGE07
(CENTRAL), (PC ACT CASES OF ACB, GNCTD), DELHI
C.C.NO. : 48/11
Unique Case ID : 02401R0084272003
STATE VS. PREM RAJ SHARMA
S/o Sh. Ram Chander
R/o Flat No.110 (Plot No.29),
Swastik Kunj, Sector13,
Rohini, Delhi85
FIR NO. : 46/2001
U/S : 7/8/13 Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988
P.S. : ANTI CORRUPTION BRANCH,
DELHI
Date of Institution 28.06.2003
Judgment reserved on 14.11.2011
Judgment delivered on 16.11.2011
JUDGMENT
1. The precise case of the prosecution is that on dated 14.08.2001 complainant Smt. Indrani Ghosh W/o Sh. R.N. Ghosh C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 1 of 45 went to Anti Corruption Branch, Delhi and got lodged his complaint Ex.PW1/A regarding initial demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/ which has been reduced to Rs.5,000/ by the accused Prem Raj Sharma who was posted as Tehsildar, Hauz Khas, New Delhi in consideration for issuance of low Valuation Report of Property bearing no. E981, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi being owned by deceased father of the complainant.
2. The gist of the said complaint is that the complainant was residing at first floor and her mother was residing at the ground floor of property bearing No. E981, Chitranjan Park, Delhi which was built up by Sh. S.N. Sanyal, father of the complainant in the year 197778 and he expired on 01.05.1992 and before his death he had executed a Will thereby bequeathing the absolute right over said property in favour of complainant's mother Smt. Sabita Sanyal and after her death, in favour of complainant's brother Dr. Subrata Sanyal. Therefore, said Subrata Sanyal, brother of the complainant had filed Probate Petition no. 3/2001 in the Court of District Judge, Tis Hazari Court for grant of Probate on the said Will and therefore, Tahsildar, Hauz Khas, Mehrauli had been directed from the Court of District Judge for valuation of said property and Notice has been issued from C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 2 of 45 the office of Tehsildar as against the mother of the complainant whereby calling upon her alongwith all the relevant papers in the office of Tehsildar on 14.08.2001. The mother of the complainant had executed a Power of Attorney in favour of the complainant. On 09.08.2001 at about 03:30 p.m. accused Prem Raj Sharma alongwith another person came to their house and gave his introduction and produced his ICard and thereafter, demanded Rs.10,000/ as bribe for giving Low Valuation Report of the said property and on request by the complainant, he scaled down the bribe amount to Rs.5,000/ and asked the complainant in case said amount is paid him there, they need not come to his office on 14.08.2001. But the complainant stated that neither she nor her mother was having said amount at that time and therefore, they would arrange the said amount for payment in his office on 14.08.2001. Since the complainant was against giving of bribe and hence, she went to Anti Corruption Branch and got lodged her complaint Ex.PW1/A before the then Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer PW8 in presence of Panch witness, Devender Sharma PW 6.
3. The further case of the prosecution is that the complainant has produced 2 GC notes of Rs. 1,000/ each and 6 GC notes of Rs. C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 3 of 45 500/ each, total amounting to Rs.5,000/ before the Raid Officer PW8 who noted down the serial number of said GC notes in the pre raid proceedings Ex.PW1/B and treated the said GC notes with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, Raid Officer PW8 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 hurling his hand over his head after being satisfied that the bribe has actually been given. Thereafter, the Raid Officer/PW8 also gave the demonstration of Tape Recording System and insert a Blank small Cassette in a Micro Tape Recorder and same was handed over to the complainant with the direction to switch on the same during conversation with the accused and Raid Officer drawn the proceeding in this respect which is Ex.PW1/C.
4. That on that day i.e. 14.08.2001 at about 11:30 a.m., PW8 Raid Officer along with complainant, Panch witness, Inspector Sheel C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 4 of 45 Nidhi and other members of the raiding party left Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and reached near SDM office Mehrauli at about 12:50 p.m. Government vehicle was parked at some distance and Inspector Sheel Nidhi and the Driver remained in the vehicle. Complainant and Panch witness went towards the office of the accused and other members of the raiding team took suitable position.
5. The further case of the prosecution is that at about 1:15 p.m. on receiving the signal from the Panch witness, Raid Officer alongwith other members of the raiding team reached the spot, on which the Panch witness disclosed that the accused Tehsildar had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs.5000/ from the complainant. Panch witness also stated that another person namely Ashok Kumar sitting there had told the complainant that the accused Tehsildar had already reduced the bribe amount. Thereafter, Raid Officer disclosed his identity and challenged the accused and on instructions of Raid Officer, Panch witness recovered GC notes of Rs.5,000/ from the left pocket of pant of the accused and compared the serial number of that GC notes with serial number mentioned in pre raid proceedings Ex.PW1/B and the same tallied. That recovered GC notes were taken C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 5 of 45 into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/D. The wash of both hands of the accused and left pocket of pant of the accused were taken separately in colorless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink and solution was transferred into six empty small clean bottles which were sealed with the seal of MS and were marked as RHWI & II, LHWI & II, LSPPWI & II by pasting slips thereon which were signed by Raid Officer, complainant and Panch witness. Those bottles and the pullanda containing the pant of the accused were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E. The Raid Officer also took possession of Micro Cassette after converting the same into a sealed pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. Raid Officer also drawn up the post raid proceedings which is Ex.PW1/J and prepared rukka Ex.PW8/A and sent the same through Ct. Om Prakash to PS Anti Corruption Branch for registration of the case.
6. The further case of the prosecution is that the Raid Officer called Inspector Sheel Nidhi/PW12, 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.PW12/A, arrested the accused Prem Raj Sharma and Ashok Kumar vide Personal Search Memo Ex.PW6/C C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 6 of 45 and PW6/D and seized ICard Ex.PY of the accused Prem Raj Sharma vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A and photocopy of the ICard Ex.PW6/B vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G, seized Probate Case File Ex.P1 vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H. IO recorded the statement of the complainant and Panch witness and received original rukka Ex.PW8/A and copy of FIR Ex.PW12/C and thereafter, went to PS Civil Line where he deposited the case property, exhibits and articles of personal search with the MHC(M) and the accused were put in the lock up. During the course of Investigation, the relevant exhibits were sent to FSL for chemical analysis and later on received the FSL Report Ex.PW12/D & PW12/E. Biodata of the accused Prem Raj Sharma Ex.PW4/B alongwith the Posting Order Ex.PW4/C, Sanction Order Ex.PW7/A were also received by the IO. 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 punishable U/S120B IPC r/w Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 7 & 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed as against C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 7 of 45 accused Prem Raj Sharma and charge for offence punishable U/S 120 B IPC r/w Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was framed as against accused Ashok Kumar on 04.09.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 03.08.2006 as passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.M.C.No. 374/05 and Crl. M.A. No.1185/05, the order on charge concerning accused Ashok Kumar was quashed. Therefore, the trial proceeded further only as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma. Vide order dated 24.3.2008, the charge relating to accused Prem Raj Sharma was suitably modified accordingly.
8. That in order to bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution got examined 12 prosecution witnesses namely Smt.Indrani Ghosh/complainant as PW1, Ct.Raj Kumar, Assistant MHC(M), PS Civil Lines, a formal witness as PW2, Surender Singh, Ahlmad from the court of Ld. District & Sessions Judge, Delhi, a formal witness as PW3, Narender Singh, Superintendent from the office of Deputy Commissioner, South District, New Delhi, a formal witness as PW4, Smt. Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant as PW5, Sh. Devender Sharma, Panch witness as PW6, Ms.Shailja C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 8 of 45 Chandra, the then Chief Secretary,Delhi, Sanctioning Authority as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma as PW7, the then Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer as PW8, Sh.Gian Chand, the then Kanoongo in the office of Tehsildar, Hauz Khas, a formal witness as PW9, Jai Prakash, the then Peon in the office of the accused, a formal witness as PW10, Sh.A.K.Yadav, the then Tehsildar, Headquarter, a formal witness as PW11 and Inspector Sheel Nidhi, IO as PW12.
9. After closure of the PE, statement of accused Prem Raj Sharma 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 by the complainant and her mother. However, the accused has got examined two witnesses namely SI Hari Prakash as DW1 and Sh.L.S.Yadav as DW2 in his defence.
10. I have heard Final Arguments as addressed by Sh. H.K.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 Prem Raj C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 9 of 45 Sharma that the accused has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspects and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. It is also added by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW1 Indrani Ghosh/complainant and PW5/Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant and PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness have deposed falsely at the instance of Inspector M.S.Sangha as against the accused and therefore, their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that deposition of PW6/Devender Sharma,Panch witness also cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable as he is a stock witness of police and admitted to have participated as Panch witness several times in Anti Corruption Branch. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that though number of persons were available in the office of the accused at the time of the alleged raid but none of them was joined in the raid proceedings and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the complainant and her mother were not the petitioners but were respondents in the concerned Probate Petition and court fee on the valuation of the property relating to said Probate was to be paid by the petitioner and not by the complainant and therefore, the motive to pay bribe on the part of the C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 10 of 45 complainant is missing. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that the transcript of the alleged conversation regarding the transaction being fabricated and otherwise being not clearly audible cannot be considered as against the accused. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that Sanction Order in this case has been passed by the Sanctioning Authority mechanically without proper application of mind and therefore, said Sanction is not legally valid. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that after modification of the charge, accused was not given fresh opportunity for leading evidence and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer has not used the seal of SK as issued to her but has used the seal of MS as issued to Inspector M.S.Sangha in sealing the case properties after the alleged raid and the same are found supported from the deposition of DW1 and said facts are fatal for the case of the prosecution. It is further added by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW8/Raid Officer is also an interested witness for success of her raid and her deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. Thus, Ld. Defence Counsel urged for acquittal of this accused Prem Raj Sharma.
C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 11 of 45
12. To the contrary, it is submitted by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the prosecution by examining 12 PWs have clearly established its case as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma and therefore, he deserves to be convicted for the charged offence U/S 7 and 13 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the prosecution has successfully established its case as against the accused through the deposition of PW1/ Indrani Ghosh,complainant, PW5/Sabita Sanyal,mother of the complainant, PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness, PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer and PW12/Inspector Sheel Nidhi, 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 PW1/complainant, PW5/mother of the complainant, PW8/Raid Officer, PW6/Panch witness and PW12/IO, would falsely implicate the accused specifically when there is no previous enmity as against the accused by them. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that Sanctioning Authority has passed the Sanction Order on proper appreciation of the material on record and Sanction Order is legally valid. It is further added by Ld. Addl.PP that the handwash and pant pocket wash of the accused has turned pink and have given positive test for presence of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate as found supported from the C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 12 of 45 FSL Report Ex.PW12/D and same also corroborate the factum regarding demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe from the accused. Ld. Addl.PP for the State has added that the prosecution has been successful in establishing its case as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma for the charged offence and hence, the accused 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 per Section 19 (1) (c) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In order to prove the Sanction, the prosecution has examined PW7 Ms.Shailja Chandra, the then Chief Secretary, Delhi who has categorically deposed that in April 2003, she was posted as Chief Secretary, Delhi and on receiving the request alongwith certain documents such as copy of FIR, Raid Report, Seizure Memo, Statement recorded U/S 161 Cr.P.C., FSL Report from Anti Corruption Branch to grant sanction U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for prosecuting the accused Prem Raj who was posted as Tehsildar, she had gone through the said documents as placed before her, very carefully and after due application of her mind, she was of the view C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 13 of 45 that accused Prem Raj should be prosecuted and being competent authority to remove the accused Prem Raj from service, she had accorded the Sanction U/S 19 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 vide Sanction Order Ex.PW7/A bearing her signature at point A. She had specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that she had accorded the sanction mechanically. From the perusal of the Biodata of the accused which is Ex.PW4/B, it is clearly reflected that said PW7 being the Chief Secretary, Delhi was the Appointing & Disciplinary Authority and therefore, competent to remove the accused from his service.
14. 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.
C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 14 of 45
15. 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 irregularity therein caused failure of justice, that plea is without substance."
16. 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 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 15 of 45 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 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".
17. By taking cue from the aforesaid judgments 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 was passed mechanically as I am of considered view that the Sanction has been validly granted by PW7 Ms.Shailja Chandra, the then Chief Secretary, Delhi, who was competent to do so. C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 16 of 45
18. That during the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that the accused Prem Raj Sharma has neither demanded nor accepted any bribe from the complainant and the prosecution has failed to prove about the said aspect and hence, accused deserves to be acquitted. On the other hand, it is submitted by Ld. Addl.PP for the State that the facts regarding demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused from complainant has been successfully proved by the prosecution through the deposition of the PW1/Indrani Ghosh, complainant, PW5/Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant, PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness, PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer and PW12/Inspector Sheel Nidhi,IO.
19. In order to prove that the accused had demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, the prosecution is found to have examined PW1/Indrani Ghosh, complainant, PW5/Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant, PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness, PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer.
20. PW1/complainant Indrani Ghosh has deposed that in the year 2001 she was residing at the First floor and her mother Sabita Sanyal was residing at Ground floor of property bearing No.E981, C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 17 of 45 Chitranjan Park, New Delhi. Her father Sh.S.N.Sanyal had expired on 01.05.1992 and had left a Will whereby giving life interest on said property to her mother Sabita Sanyal and thereafter, right over the said property in favour of her brother Subrata Sanyal. She further deposed that her brother had filed a Probate Petition No.3/2001 and court had directed for the valuation of the said property. She also deposed that 7/8 days before the date of raid, a letter was received from the office of Tehsildar, Hauz Khas, Mehrauli to produce the documents of the property and to appear in Tehsildar office on 14.8.2001. She further deposed that she was having the Power of Attorney on behalf of her mother. She further deposed that on 8th or 9th August 2001 in the afternoon, accused Prem Raj and accused Ashok Kumar came to their said property and accused Prem Raj on giving his introduction demanded illegal gratification of Rs.10,000/ for issuing low Valuation Report of the said property and on her request, the accused scaled down the demand of bribe to Rs.5,000/. She also deposed that accused Tehsildar stated that in case said amount of Rs.5,000/ was paid then her mother need not to come to his office on 14.8.2001, on which she stated that they were not having the amount at that time and they would come to his office on 14.8.2001 and pay the amount. Said PW1/complainant further C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 18 of 45 deposed that on 14.8.2001 she alongwith her mother went to Anti Corruption Branch and she lodged her complaint Ex.PW1/A which bears her signature at point A. Her mother as well as the Panch witness had also signed on the said complaint. She further deposed that she delivered 2 GC notes of Rs.1000/ each and 6 GC notes of Rs. 500/ each to the Raid Officer and number of the said GC notes were noted in the PreRaid Report Ex.PW1/B. She also deposed about the PreRaid Proceedings Ex.PW1/B. She also deposed regarding handing over of small Tape Recorder and one Micro Cassette to her after demonstration for recording the conversation with the accused and proceeding in this respect was prepared which is Ex.PW1/C. She further deposed that she alongwith her mother and Panch witness left Anti Corruption Branch at about 11:30 a.m. in a private car and other member of raiding team left in a Government vehicle and reached SDM office, Mehrauli at about 12:30/1:00 p.m. PW1/complainant further deposed that she alongwith Panch witness went to the office of accused Prem Raj and met him. As regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe, said PW1 complainant deposed in this respect as under: "After some time accused Premraj and accused Ashok came there and I switched on the taperecorder and accused C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 19 of 45 Premraj started talking about the value of the property in question and then he stated that he has valued the property for Rs.17 or 18 lacs although it is worth Rs. 34 lacs and thereafter he wrote something on the file after he confirmed from me in gestures if I had brought the money and I indicated in affirmative and then accused Premraj asked me to give the agreed money to coaccused Ashok. I insisted that I would give the money to accused Premraj only. I took out those treated GC notes from my purse and gave it to accused Premraj who took them with his hands and started counting them and thereafter he had put them in left pocket of his pant."
21. Said PW1/complainant also deposed that on receiving the predetermined signal as given by the Panch witness, members of the raiding party came there and Panch witness pointed towards the accused Prem Raj as the person who had accepted the bribe money. Thereafter, the Raid Officer after disclosing her identity challenged the accused Prem Raj of having accepted the bribe money and accused Ashok tried to escape but he was apprehended. Said C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 20 of 45 PW1/complainant also deposed that on the instructions of the Raid Officer treated GC notes were recovered from the left pocket of the pant of the accused Prem Raj and serial numbers of the said GC notes were found tallied with the serial numbers as mentioned in the pre raid Report and said GC notes were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/D which bears her signature at point A. Said PW1/ complainant also deposed that hand wash and left pocket wash of the pant of the accused Prem Raj were taken separately in water type solution which turned into pink and said solution was transferred into six bottles which were duly sealed with seal of MS and the pant of the accused Prem Raj was also seized and sealed with the seal of MS and said 6 bottles and parcel containing the pant of the accused were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/E bearing her signature at point A. She also deposed that Micro Cassette was taken out from the Tape Recorder and said cassette was sealed in a parcel with the seal of MS and same was taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F which bear her signature at point A. She also deposed that photocopy of Icard of the accused Prem Raj was seized from her vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G which bears her signature at point A. She also deposed that the property case file was also seized from the office table of the accused Prem Raj vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H and C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 21 of 45 same bear her signature at point A and A1 and said file is Ex.P1. Said PW1 also deposed that Raid Officer carried out the Post Raid Report Ex.PW1/J which bears her signature at point A. She also deposed that the accused Prem Raj was arrested. Said PW1 has duly identified said treated GC notes as Ex.P2 to P9, sealed bottles containing wash solution marked as RHWI, RHWII, LHWI and LHWII and LSPPWI and LSPPWII as Ex.P10 to P15, pant of the accused as Ex.P16 and parcel of the said pant as Ex.P17. Said PW1 has denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that no transfer of money took place between her and the accused and no money was recovered from the pant pocket of the accused.
22. Similarly, PW6 Devender Sharma/Panch witness has deposed before the court that on dated 14.08.2001 he was on duty as a Panch witness in the Anti Corruption Branch and complainant Indrani Ghosh got recorded her Complaint Ex.PW1/A bearing his signature at point C and he has also narrated about the Pre Raid Proceedings Ex.PW1/B bearing his signatures at point B. He further deposed that a Tape Recorder alongwith Micro Cassette was given to the complainant and the proceedings in this respect is Ex.PW1/C which bears his signatures at point B. He also deposed that at about 11:30 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 22 of 45 a.m., he alongwith the complainant, her mother and other members of the raiding team left the Anti Corruption Branch in a government vehicle and in a private vehicle and reached near the office of SDM, Mehrauli at about 1:00 p.m. He further deposed that he alongwith the complainant and her mother went inside the office of Tehsildar accused Prem Raj Sharma where accused was present and was talking with some other person and they were asked to sit in another room. He also deposed about the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused and stated as under: "After 57 minutes, accused came in that room and sat on the chair and thereafter he opened an almirah and took out a file. One other person was sitting in that room in a side. Complainant told that she has brought Rs. 5000/. Accused asked the complainant to hand over the money to said person by gesture. But complainant insisted to give the same to accused Prem Raj. And thereafter the complainant handed over those GC notes to Prem Raj who accepted the same with his right hand and kept those GC notes in his left pocket of his pant after counting the same with the help of both the hands.
Thereafter, I came out from the room and gave pre C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 23 of 45 determined signal by hurling my hand over my head. The members of raiding party immediately came at the spot and Raid Officer enquired from me about the incident and I told her that accused Prem Raj had demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 5000/ from the complainant with his right hand and after counting the same with his both hands and kept the same in his left pocket of his pant".
23. Said PW6 Panch witness Devender Sharma also deposed that on the instructions of the Raid Officer, he recovered those treated GC notes from the left pocket of the pant of the accused Prem Raj and serial number of said GC notes were found tallied with the serial number as mentioned in the preraid Report and GC notes were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/D bearing his signature at point B. Said PW6 also deposed about taking of both hand wash and left pocket wash of pant of the accused Prem Raj separately in water type solution which turned into pink colour and said solution were transferred into 6 bottles. He also deposed that the pant of the accused was also converted into a pullanda and said pant pullanda and 6 bottles were taken into possession vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E which bears his signature at point B. He also deposed about carrying C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 24 of 45 out of the Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW1/J bearing his signature at point B. He further deposed regarding seizure of Micro Cassette vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F, seizure of Identity Card of accused Prem Raj vide seizure memo Ex.PW6/A, seizure of photocopy of the ICard of accused Prem Raj vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/G and seizure of some other documents vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/H bearing his signature at point B. Said PW6 during the course of deposition in the court has duly identified the GC notes as Ex.P2 to P9, 6 bottles containing wash solutions, marked RHWI, RHWII, LHWI, LHW II, LSPPWI and LSPPWII as Ex.P10 to P15, the pant of the accused as Ex.P16, the Micro Cassette as seized from the complainant as Ex.P18 and the pullanda of said cassette is Ex.P19. Said PW6 has denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel in his cross examination that the accused has neither demanded nor accepted any money from the complainant or that the accused has been falsely implicated in this case.
24. PW8 Inspector Sudesh Kumari/Raid Officer is also found to have deposed in the court whereby substantiating the deposition of PW1 complainant as well as PW6 Panch witness. Said PW8 deposed that on 14.08.2001 when she was posted as Inspector in Anti C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 25 of 45 Corruption Branch, complainant Indrani Ghosh alongwith her mother Sabita Sanyal came to her at about 10:30 a.m. and got lodged her complaint Ex.PW1/A in the presence of Panch witness Devender Sharma and said complaint bears her signature at point C. She also deposed that the complainant delivered 2 GC notes of Rs.1000/ each and 6 GC notes of Rs.500/ each, to be used as bribe money and also deposed in detail regarding the PreRaid Proceedings Ex.PW1/B and Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW1/J bearing her signature at point C as carried out by her. As regards the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the accused, she deposed in this respect as under: "At about 1.15 p.m., I received the predetermined signal from panch witness and I along with raiding team rushed to the office of tehsildar I asked the panch witness, what had happened and he told me that accused present in the Court today (correctly identified) had demanded and accepted bribe of Rs.5000/ from the complainant with his right hand and after counting the same with the help of left hand had kept the same in the left pocket of wearing pant".
25. Said PW8 Raid Officer has also deposed regarding the C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 26 of 45 recovery of the bribe money by the Panch witness from the left pant pocket of the accused and seizure of the said GC notes vide Memo Ex.PW1/D bearing her signature at point C. She also deposed about taking of both hand wash of the accused as well as wash of left side pocket of pant of the accused in colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour and transferring of the said solution in 6 small clean bottles and said bottles besides pant pullanda of the accused were seized vide Seizure Memo Ex.PW1/E bearing her signature at point C. Said PW8 also deposed regarding taking into possession the Micro Cassette converting the same into pullanda vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. Said PW8 during course of her deposition in the court has duly identified the recovered GC notes, said 6 bottles, the pant of the accused besides the Micro Cassette. Said PW8 Raid Officer has denied the specific suggestion in her cross examination by Ld. Defence Counsel that the GC notes were not recovered from the pocket of the accused. She also denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the she had not taken handwash or pant wash of the accused or that the washes were prepared and sealed at Anti Corruption Branch.
26. PW5/Smt.Sabita Sanyal who is the mother of the C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 27 of 45 complainant Indrani Ghosh has also clearly deposed regarding initial demand of bribe of Rs.10,000/ which was scaled down to Rs.5000/ by the accused Prem Raj for delivering low Valuation Report of their property, 45 days prior to 14.8.2001 when said Prem Raj, Tehsildar alongwith another person came to their house at E981, Chitranjan Park,New Delhi. She also deposed that the accused had asked her daughter in case of payment of bribe amount of Rs.5000/ to him there, they need not to come at his office on 14.8.2001, on which her daughter stated that they were not having the amount at that time and they would come to his office on 14.8.2001. She also deposed as they were against giving bribe, she alongwith her daughter went to Anti Corruption Branch on 14.8.2001 and her daughter lodged complaint ExPW1/A which was also signed by her at point B. Said PW5 has denied the specific suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that the accused never demanded Rs.10,000/ or reduced it to Rs.5000/. She also reiterated in her cross examination that the accused stated that in case bribe amount of Rs.5000/ is paid then there is no need to come to his office on 14.8.2001.
27. From the deposition of PW1 complainant, PW8 Raid Officer and PW6 Panch witness coupled with Post Raid Proceedings C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 28 of 45 Ex.PW1/J, it is clearly reflected that on asking by the accused Prem Raj, PW1 complainant/Indrani Ghosh has delivered bribe amount of Rs.5000/ in the form of 2 GC notes of Rs.1000/ each and 6 GC notes of Rs.500/ each to the accused Prem Raj which he accepted in his right hand and by counting in his both hands kept the same in his left pocket pant and thereafter, said treated GC notes of Rs.5000/ were recovered by PW6 Panch witness Devender Sharma from the left pocket pant of the accused on the instruction of PW8 Raid Officer. It is further revealed from the record that the right hand wash, left hand wash and left pant pocket wash of the accused in colourless solution of the sodium carbonate as contained in small clean bottles Ex.RHW I, LHWI and LSPPWI respectively were found containing phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate as established from the FSL Report Ex.PW12/D. However, the transcription of CD as per Ex.PW1/X clearly reflect that the same was not properly audible and hence, cannot be relied upon.
28. In view of the aforesaid material as available on the record, the demand and acceptance of the bribe of Rs.5000/ by the accused Prem Raj from the complainant PW1 Indrani Ghosh has been clearly found established by the prosecution.
C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 29 of 45
29. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Counsel for the accused that as PW8/Raid Officer is an interested witness for success of her raid and therefore, her 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 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 30 of 45 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 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 accept the evidence of such an officer."
30. Besides that in the case reported as AIR 1998 SC 1474 State of U.P. Vs. Zakullaha it was held by the Hon'ble Supere 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 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 31 of 45 held in the judgment reported as "Prakash Chand vs. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 SC 400".
31. During the course of the argument, it is also submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that since PW6 Panch witness has joined by the police officials of the Anti Corruption Branch in several cases as Panch witness, he is a stock witness of the police and therefore, his deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. No doubt in his cross examination said PW6 Devender Sharma is found to have stated that he has been assigned duty as Panch witness several times in Anti Corruption Branch but the same cannot be a ground for discarding his deposition specifically when it is found corroborated from the deposition of PW1 complainant as well as PW8 Raid Officer besides contents of the Complaint Ex.PW1/A, PreRaid Proceedings Ex.PW1/B, Post Raid Proceedings Ex.PW1/J, Seizure Memo of GC notes Ex.PW1/D, Seizure Memo of exhibits and pant of accused Ex.PW1/E. Furthermore, said PW6 Devender Sharma who was a public servant being posted as JE in Irrigation & Flood Control Department, Delhi on 14.8.2001 and had been joined as Panch witness in the Anti Corruption Branch as per the roaster prepared in this respect during official course of the business and not as per the sweet C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 32 of 45 will of said PW6 Devender Sharma and therefore, it cannot be treated as infirmity while considering the deposition of PW6 Panch witness Devender Sharma.
32. During the course of arguments, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that though there were several persons available in the office of the accused and nonjoining of any of them in the raid proceedings is fatal for the case of the prosecution. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that since an independent witness i.e. PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness had already been joined in the proceedings by the PW8/Raid Officer, nonjoining of any other person available at the spot 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. 48/11 Page No. 33 of 45 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."
33. During the course of the argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW1/Indrani Ghosh, complainant, PW5/Sabita C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 34 of 45 Sanyal, mother of the complainant and PW6/Devender Sharma,Panch witness have deposed falsely as against the accused at the instance of Inspector M.S.Sangha who had played an active role in the said raid and therefore, their deposition cannot be treated as trustworthy and reliable. I do not find any force in the said submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in view of the fact that no material has been brought on record on behalf of the accused as to why Inspector M.S.Sangha would falsely get implicate this accused and as to why PW1/Indrani Ghosh, complainant, PW5/Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant, PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness would falsely depose as against this accused in case he had not demanded and accepted the bribe specifically when there is no allegation of earlier enmity by said PWs as against this accused.
34. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that after modification of the charge as this accused was not given any fresh opportunity for leading evidence, same is fatal for the case of the prosecution. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that initially after hearing both sides on the point of charge, charge for offence punishable U/S120B IPC r/w Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 7 & C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 35 of 45 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed as against accused Prem Raj Sharma and charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 7 and 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and U/S 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was framed as against accused Ashok Kumar on 04.09.2004 to which accused pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. However, vide order dated 03.08.2006 as passed by the Hon'ble High Court in Crl.M.C.No.374/05 and Crl.M.A.No.1185/05, the order on charge concerning accused Ashok Kumar was quashed. Therefore, the trial proceeded further only as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma and vide order dated 24.3.2008, the charge relating to accused Prem Raj Sharma was suitably modified accordingly whereby maintaining the charge only U/S 7 & 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and initial charge for offence punishable U/S 120B IPC r/w Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 was dropped thereby clearly indicating that no charge for any additional offence concerning accused Prem Raj Sharma was framed on 24.3.2008 on modification of charge. It is further revealed from the record that said accused Prem Raj Sharma has been duly provided with the opportunities for cross examination of all the relevant PWs and PW1/Ms.Indrani Ghosh, complainant, C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 36 of 45 PW5/Sabita Sanyal, mother of the complainant, PW6/Devender Sharma, Panch witness, PW7 Ms.Shailja Chandra, Sanctioning Authority, PW8 Inspector Sudesh Kumari/Raid Officer and PW12/ Inspector Sheel Nidhi,IO have been elaborately cross examined on behalf of the accused Prem Raj Sharma. It is further revealed from the record that after recording the statement of the accused Prem Raj Sharma U/S 313 Cr.P.C., he was duly given opportunity for leading defence evidence and he has got examined two DWs in this respect. In view of the same, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel to the effect that after modification of charge as accused was not given fresh opportunity for leading evidence and same is fatal for the case of the prosecution.
35. During the course of argument, it is submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer has not used the seal of SK as issued to her but has used the seal of MS as issued to Inspector M.S.Sangha in sealing the case property after the alleged raid and same are also found supported from the deposition of DW1 and said facts are fatal for the case of the prosecution. From the perusal of the deposition of PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer, it is clearly reflected that she had seized C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 37 of 45 six bottles Marked RHWI & II, LHWI & II and LSPPWI & II containing the both hands wash and left pocket pant wash of accused after duly sealing the same with the seal of MS and pant pullanda of the accused after duly sealing the same with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/E and had seized Micro Cassette after duly sealing the same with the seal of MS vide seizure memo Ex.PW1/F. It is also revealed from the deposition of DW1 SI Hari Prakash that seal of MS was issued to Inspector M.S.Sangha and the seal of SK was issued to Inspector Sudesh Kumari. It is also revealed from the record that Inspector M.S.Sangha was also a member of the raiding team. In view of the same, the conduct on the part of PW8/Inspector Sudesh Kumari, Raid Officer in not using her seal of SK and using the seal of MS as issued to Inspector M.S.Sangha, in sealing the relevant case property after raid may be treated as procedural irregularity but since there is nothing on record to establish that the accused has been substantively prejudiced thereby resulting failure of justice, said aspect cannot be over emphasized and can be of no help for the accused.
36. During the course of the argument, it is also submitted by Ld. Defence Counsel that the complainant and her mother were not C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 38 of 45 the petitioners but were respondents in the concerned Probate Petition and court fee on the valuation of the property relating to said probate was to be paid by the petitioner therein and not by the complainant and her mother and therefore, the motive to pay any bribe on the part of the complainant is missing and same also falsify the case of the prosecution. From the perusal of the copy of the Probate Petition Ex.PW1/D1, it is reflected that Dr.Subrata Sanyal who is the brother of the complainant was the petitioner and Smt.Sabita Sanyal who is the mother of the complainant and the complainant Smt.Indrani Ghosh were added as respondent No.2 and 3 in the said Probate Petition with regard to the Will dated 9.12.91 of Sh.S.N.Sanyal, deceased father of the complainant. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that PW1/Smt.Indrani Ghosh, complainant has clearly deposed that she was residing at the First floor and her mother Smt.Sabita Sanyal was residing at the Ground floor of the property bearing no. E981, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi and her father S.N.Sanyal who expired on 1.5.92, left a Will giving life interest on said property to her mother and thereafter, property was to go to her brother Subrata Sanyal and her brother had filed Probate Petition No. 03/2001. She has also deposed that her mother has executed a Power of Attorney in her favour. She has also deposed that her brother C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 39 of 45 stayed at Kharagpur as he was Professor in IIT, Kharagpur. She has specifically deposed that she has given no objection in said Probate case. Said PW1 has specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that she wanted the delay in disposal of the Probate case or to make her brother pay higher court fee. Said PW1 has also deposed that she has submitted the copy of MCD House Tax Bill relating to said property bearing No. E981, Chitranjan Park, New Delhi Ex.PW1/D3 and copy of House Tax Receipt in this respect Ex.PW1/D4 to the accused Prem Raj Sharma in his office on 14.8.2001. PW5/Smt.Sabita Sanyal who is the mother of the complainant has also deposed in the line of the complainant in this respect. She also specifically denied the suggestion of Ld. Defence Counsel that she wanted higher valuation of the property so that her son would pay more court fee. From the perusal of the record, it is reflected that no material has been adduced on behalf of the accused to establish that PW1/complainant and PW5/mother of the complainant were having conflicting interest with Subrata Sanyal who was the petitioner in the said Probate Petition with regard to said Probate Property. To the contrary, the complainant has clearly deposed that she has given no objection in favour of her brother in the said Probate Proceedings. In view of the aforesaid material available C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 40 of 45 on record, I do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Defence Counsel in this respect.
37. I also do not find any force in the submission of Ld. Counsel for the accused that alleged recovery of the treated GC notes as against the accused 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.
38. 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 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 41 of 45 offered by the accused is reasonable and probable. It must further be shown that the explanation is a true one. The words 'unless the contrary is proved' which occurs in this provision make it clear that the presumption has to be rebutted by 'proof' and not by a mere explanation which is merely plausible. A fact is said to be proved when its existence is directly established or when upon the material before it the Court finds its existence to be probable that a reasonable man would act on the supposition that it exists. Unless, therefore, the explanation is supported by proof, the presumption created by the provision cannot be said to be rebutted.
39. 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 C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 42 of 45 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 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."
40. It is also useful to refer to the case of B. Noha V/s State of Kerela & Another 2006 VI AD ( Criminal ) 465 ( SC ) where it was held 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."
41. It was held in the case reported as State of AP Vs. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy 2000 (9) SCC 752, that when C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 43 of 45 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.
42. 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 person. In the present case, the accused Prem Raj Sharma has not given any justifiable explanation as to how bribe amount of Rs.5000/ landed in his left side pocket of his pant from which it was recovered. The accused in his statement U/S 313 Cr.P.C.has taken the stand that he is innocent and falsely implicated in this case as he has never demanded and accepted any bribe from the complainant but said bare plea of the accused appears to be baseless and afterthought and can be of no help for the accused.
43. 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 Prem Raj Sharma.
44. In view of the aforesaid discussion, I have no hesitation to C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 44 of 45 safely conclude that the prosecution has successfully established its case as against the accused Prem Raj Sharma for the charged offence and therefore, the accused Prem Raj Sharma is held guilty and convicted for offence punishable U/S 7 and 13 (2) r/w Section 13 (1)
(d) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
45. Let accused Prem Raj Sharma be heard separately on the point of sentence.
Announced in the open court on this 16th day of November, 2011 (B.R. Kedia) Special Judge07 (PC Act Cases of ACB, GNCTD) Central District, THC,Delhi C.C. No. 48/11 Page No. 45 of 45