Research › Browse › Judgment

Supreme Court of India · body

2016 DIGILAW 1330 (SC)

Rohtash Kanwar v. State (NCT) of Delhi

2016-09-20

PRAFULLA C.PANT, RANJAN GOGOI

body2016
ORDER : Leave granted. 2. The challenge in this appeal is against the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption, 1988 (for short "PC Act"). He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two years along with fine for the offence punishable under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act whereas for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the PC Act, he has been sentenced for rigorous imprisonment for one year along with fine. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. The short case of the prosecution is that P.W.8, the complainant who was the owner of a jewellery shop was brought to the Police Station, Sultanpuri, Delhi on 3.10.2000 on an allegation that he had purchased stolen jewellery. It is the case of the prosecution that in the Police Station accused No.1-Munshi Ram, Sub-Inspector of Delhi Police demanded a sum of Rs.1,00,000/- (Rupees One Lakh) as illegal gratification to favour him in the above case. According to the prosecution, the amount was settled at Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand) out of which Rs.20,000/- was paid by P.W.8 to A1 on 4.10.2000. It is the further case of the prosecution that on the date of occurrence namely, 6.10.2000, P.W.8 had gone to the Police Station with an amount of Rs.5,000/- as part payment of the demand raised by A1. 4. According to the prosecution, upon arrival at the police station A1 asked PW 8 as to whether he has brought the money and the answer being in the affirmative, A1 had asked the present accused-appellant (A2) to receive money from P.W.8. Accordingly, the amount of Rs.5,000/- (Rupees Five Thousand) was handed over to the accused-appellant. 5. The prosecution further alleges that once the said amount was handed over to the accused-appellant, P.W.3, the panch witness gave a pre determined signal to the raiding party and thereupon the accused appellant ran away. On a wash of the right hand and right hand pocket of the trouser of A2, it had turned pink. It is on the aforesaid basis that prosecution was launched against A1 as well as A2 (accused-appellant) which resulted in the conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 6. On a wash of the right hand and right hand pocket of the trouser of A2, it had turned pink. It is on the aforesaid basis that prosecution was launched against A1 as well as A2 (accused-appellant) which resulted in the conviction and sentence as aforesaid. 6. Before proceeding any further, it would require a mention that the special leave petition filed by the A1 against his conviction and sentence has been dismissed by this Court. It is also required to be noticed that the present accused-appellant has served out the sentence imposed on him and has been released from custody upon completion of the period of imprisonment. 7. P.W.8 the complainant has turned hostile. P.W.3, the panch witness who is the only other witness with regard to demand, has testified that the Accused No.1 has raised the demand. From the testimony of P.W.3, it is also evident that the accused No.2 was asked to receive the amount of Rs.5,000/- on 6.10.2000 from P.W.8, by his superior officer, namely, accused No.1. Apart from above, there is no other witness examined by the prosecution to prove the demand of bribe by A2 (accused-appellant). 8. In the above situation and in the absence of any proof of demand by the accused-appellant, we do not see how the charge under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act can be sustained insofar as the accused No.2, the present appellant is concerned. The charges against the accused-appellant are for commission of the substantive offence under the PC Act as mentioned and no allegation of connivance or acting in concert with A1 had been levied. For the aforesaid reason we are of the view that the present is a fit case for interference with the orders of the learned courts below convicting and sentencing the accused-appellant, as aforesaid. 9. For the aforesaid reason we allow the appeal and set aside the conviction of the accused-appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read Section 13(2) of the PC Act as well as the sentence imposed.