Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Heard learned counsel for the parties. Briefly the exposition of facts is that the Appellant an officer of Indian Administrative Services is facing trial under Section 13(1)(e) read with 13(2) of the PC Act being RC No. 3(A)/90- ACU-II-CBI-ND. During the search certain documents relating to the properties were found in the name of one lady Ms. Shashi Prabha Sharma Manager, Punjab National Bank posted at Ahmedabad at the relevant time. Since CBI suspected the said Ms. Shashi Prabha Sharma to be also in possession of assets disproportionate to the known sources of her income, another FIR vide RC No. 1(A)/95-ACU-II-CBI-ND was registered against her under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(e) of the PC Act. The case of the prosecution against the Appellant in the present appeal arising out of RC (1)(A)/96-ACU-IX/N.Delhi is that the complainant PW1 Inspector V.M. Kumar was the investigating officer in the case of disproportionate assets against Shashi Prabha Sharma. In March-April 1996 when he went to Shimla for investigation, the complainant was contacted by one Amarjit Singh a property dealer by profesion to accept some money and write a report so as to save Ms. Sharma from the allegations. PW1 did not show any interest and rather made it clear that he would work in accordance with law. It is further alleged that about a week before 10th April, 1996 the Appellant made a telephonic call to PW1 asking him to meet outside the office stating that he had something to communicate to him. The complainant is stated to have asked him to come to the office, however the Appellant left his phone number to contact later. On 8th April, 1996 the Appellant again made a call to PW1 and stated that he should meet him outside. The Appellant came on 9th April, 1996 and asked PW1 to close the case of disproportionate assets of Ms. Shashi Prabha Sharma and prepare the supplementary report in such a manner. The Appellant asked him to come outside the office, called PW1 outside the room and stated that he has brought some money for him. As per the prosecution case PW1 declined the offer and the Appellant left his phone number and informed that he was in Delhi up to 15th April, 1996. It is at this stage that the PW1 made a complaint and on 10th April, 1996 he called up the Appellant wherein he again repeated the offer of money which conversation was tape-recorded by PW1. A trap was laid by PW4 DSP M.C. Joshi the Trap Laying Officer wherein he requisitioned two witnesses V.K. Mittal PW2 and M.M. Kumar. When the trap laying party reached the Sujata Restaurant the place fixed, the TLO along with two independent witnesses and other officers of CBI entered the restaurant at about 6.30 PM and they all occupied different seats distributing themselves on three tables. The case of PW1 is that he noticed the Appellant outside the parking area itself. The Appellant went to him where Appellant offered the money. Though initially PW1 resisted, however then he accepted and kept it in the briefcase and came inside the restaurant with the Appellant. They both occupied a table and thereafter PW1 gave the pre-appointed signal when the Appellant was apprehended and the envelope containing Rs. 30,000/- was recovered from the briefcase of PW1.