Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

6. Mr.Sandeep Sethi, senior counsel and Mr.Randhir Jain, learned counsel for VKC and DS, respectively, have assailed the impugned judgment and order mainly on the ground of lack of sufficient and reliable evidence against the accused persons. They alleged various infirmities in the prosecution case as also discrepancies in the statements of prosecution witnesses. They also alleged the complainant to be an accomplice and interested witness. Learned counsel for VKC specifically submitted that there was no evidence qua this accused regarding demand and also no recovery was effected from him and that the complainant has made various improvements in his statement made in the Court. The learned defence counsel of accused DS submitted that this accused was not attached with VKC, but was posted as peon and that he had no authority to take any action against unauthorized construction/repairs. He also submitted that there was no evidence of demand against him and that the amount which was recovered from him was in fact received by him for and on behalf of VKC.

7. Before adverting to the submissions of learned defence counsel, some of the facts which are admitted or undisputed may be noted. It is not in dispute that the premises in question was owned by Smt. Hardev Batra (mother-in-law of PW1 and mother of PW2). From the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 it is also borne out that some unauthorized construction was carried in the said premises. Though, the unauthorized construction was not booked for any action, as was borne out from the report Ex. PW6/C of PW6, but in the event of the same having come to the notice of MCD, action was to follow against the builder/occupier, which could include demolition of the construction and also prosecution of the one, who had undertaken unauthorized construction. It is also proved from the testimonies of PW1 and PW2 that none of them were present at the site when the Municipal Officials allegedly came and took away the plumbing tools in the forenoon of 16th November, 1992. PW1 had attributed to PW2 about the information of visit of accused DS, who according to PW1 was present at the site. Since PW2 on his part clarified to be not present there and stated having come to know from some plumber Satish, the testimony of both PW1 and PW2 with regard to visit of DS would be taken as hearsay and not admissible. The matter may not end here. PW2 had also deposed about the visit of this official 3-4 times earlier also. To the same effect was the testimony of PW1 regarding the earlier visit of accused persons at site. About DS‟s earlier visits, PW2 stated that he had started visiting from the time the construction commenced. Though, according to PW11, DS was not posted as beldar, but as peon in the office, admittedly, he was attached with the building department where VKC was positioned as JE. To the same effect is the office order Ex.PW10/F, application Ex.PW10/E and also the sanction order Ex.PW3/A which prove that DS was posted as peon in the building department. Though, DW1 stated about DS having been posted as a peon in building department, PW11 Kishori Lal, posted in the same department at that time deposed about certain acts performed by him when attached with VKC. This witness was also attached with VKC as beldar and was on demolition duty. He stated that on 16.11.1992, he accompanied with other beldars including DS went to a site in Tughlakabad (premises in question) for demolition of unauthorized construction, on the instructions of VKC and seized some implements of plumber. He stated that the seized articles remained lying in the truck. His testimony remained unassailed. The seized articles referred to by him are the same as spoken by PW1 and PW2. There is no reason to doubt the testimony of this witness, who also corroborates PW1. From all that is noted in this regard, it comes out to be that DS was posted as peon in the building department where VKC was JE, but he (DS) was also being assigned some related works by the JE, may be that of beldar. In fact, there was no dispute that during the relevant period DS was posted in the building department where VKC was posted as JE. It also remained undisputed that both VKC and DS were present on duty in the office on 17th November, 1992.

16. Though the testimony of PW1 itself was sufficient and credible enough to substantiate the prosecution case, but it also finds corroboration from the testimony of PW2 and also on material aspects from the testimonies of PW4, PW5 and PW9. PW2 also deposed about the implements of plumber having been taken away by the officials of MCD. PW2 has categorically stated and maintained about the visit of DS at the premises on 16.11.1992 and his leaving the message there to meet VKC in the office in connection with unauthorized construction in the premises. He stated and maintained that he along with PW1 went to the office of MCD to meet VKC, where they met both the accused. VKC demanded a sum of `10,000/- from them to escape demolition of the unauthorized construction. He denied all the suggestions made on behalf of both the accused persons that they did not make any demand, nor any amount was paid by PW1, nor any money was received by accused DS. He was also confronted with the statement made under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on very minor aspects which were neither relevant nor material. He also stood a lengthy cross-examination and fully supported the prosecution case.

24. The contention of learned counsel for VKC was that since the unauthorized construction had not been booked and no action was to follow, there was no occasion for VKC to demand bribe from the complainant. It is noted above that the unauthorized construction was actively undertaken, but the same was not booked in the records of MCD. In fact, this fact came to be known when the trial of the accused commenced or may be during the investigation. The fact that it was unauthorized and was likely to invite some trouble for the owner or occupier of the building, was also the reason for VKC to compel them to pay the bribe. No doubt, the unauthorized construction was an illegal act on the part of the owner or PW1, but the accused VKC wanted to take advantage of the factual situation.