Mr. Amit Shrivastava, Adv v. STATE

Judgment

1. The present appeals under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short, ‘CrPC’) have been filed assailing the impugned Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. common judgment of conviction dated 07.02.2011 and order on sentence dated 11.02.2011, passed by the learned Special Judge (ACB), Tis Hazari Court, Delhi, whereby the present appellants were convicted in CC No. 22/07 arising out of FIR No. 54/2006, under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) & 12 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, (for short, ‘PC Act) read with Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’), registered at P.S. Anti-Corruption Branch in the matter of State vs. Roop Chand and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju. Both the appeals are being disposed of vide this common judgment. For the sake of convenience, appellant-Roop Chand in CRL.A. 276/2011 is hereinafter referred to as “appellant No.1” and appellant-Rajesh Kumar @ Raju in CRL.A. 292/2011 is hereinafter referred to as “appellant No.2”.

2. Vide the aforesaid judgment of conviction and order on sentence, the appellants had been convicted for the offences punishable under Section 120- B read with Sections 7, 13(2) of the PC Act. Appellant No.1 was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 120-B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(i)(d) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, further imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Appellant No.1 was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 7 of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months. Appellant No.1 was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 13(2) of the PC Act and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for a period of Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. 6 months. Appellant No.1 was sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 120B read with Sections 7 & 13(i)(d) of the PC Act and in default of fine, further imprisonment of 6 months. Appellant No.2 was further sentenced to Rigorous Imprisonment for a period of 2 years and a fine of Rs. 4,000/- under Section 12 of PC Act and in default of payment of fine, further Simple Imprisonment for a period of 6 months. The learned Special Judge ordered that all the sentences shall run concurrently and that the appellants shall be entitled to the benefit under Section 428 of the CrPC.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

3. Brief facts, necessary for the disposal of the present appeal, are as follows: - i) On 28.06.2006, the complainant, Sudhir Rana (PW-6), submitted a complaint (Ex. PW-6/A) to the Anti-Corruption Branch, New Delhi, stating that he had purchased a house at Village Burari, Khasra No. 1/29, consisting of a ground floor and a first floor. He further stated that upon construction of the second floor on 26.06.2006, Appellant No.1, then posted as Junior Engineer (JE) with the Municipal Corporation of Delhi (MCD), Model Town, along with other staff, attempted to seal the premises and sell the said house. ii) It was further alleged in the complaint that the second floor of the house was partly demolished and that when the complainant Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. pleaded with Appellant No.1 not to demolish the remaining portion, he was directed to approach Appellant No.2, who was employed as a personal photographer of Appellant No.1. iii) It was further alleged in the complaint that Appellant No.2 thereafter called the complainant/PW-6 on mobile at about 8:00 PM and made him speak to Appellant No.1, who demanded a sum of ₹1,00,000/- to stop the demolition. The complainant stated that he would not be able to make the entire payment at once and could only pay in instalments, whereupon Appellant No.1 instructed him to remain in touch with Appellant No.2 and disconnected the call. On 28.06.2006, the complainant (PW-6) again received a call from Appellant No.2 demanding illegal gratification. iv) On the basis of the said complaint, the trap proceedings were initiated. The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/PW6 produced GC notes of Rs.20,000/- in the denomination of six GC notes of Rs. 1,000/- each and 28 GC notes of Rs. 500/- each before Hari Chand Raid Officer (PW9) in presence of the N.D. Sharma, panch witness (PW7), and same were treated with phenolphthalein powder and the demonstration about the characteristics of the phenolphthalein powder was explained by the Raid Officer (PW9) and pre-raid report, Ex.PW6/B, was prepared in which the serial numbers of the GC notes were recorded. The treated GC notes were given to the Complainant (PW6) who kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt and the panch Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. witness (PW7) was given instructions to remain close to the Complainant (PW6) and give a signal of demand/acceptance of bribe money by hurling his hand over his head. v) The case of the prosecution is that the raiding party comprising of Hari Chand Raid Officer (PW9), N.D. Sharma, panch witness (PW7), along with the complainant (PW6) reached 60 Ft. Road, Burari, Delhi with the bribe money as instructed by appellant No.2 over the call on 28.06.2006. vi) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/PW-6 and panch witness/PW-7, were seated in the car of the complainant and other raiding members took strategic positions. In the meantime, appellant No.1 came on a motorcycle near the window of the car and spoke to the complainant, PW6, and demanded and accepted the bribe amount from the complainant, PW6, in the denomination of six GC notes of Rs.1,000/- each and twenty-eight GC notes of Rs.500/- each in his right hand and kept the same in the left pocket of his shirt, but before the panch witness, PW-7, could give a pre-determined signal to the raiding party, appellant No.2 escaped. vii) The case of the prosecution is that while the raiding party was returning to the Anti-Corruption Branch, the complainant (PW-6) received a telephone call from Appellant No.2, who conveyed that Appellant No.1 had stated the amount was insufficient and instructed Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. the complainant/PW-6 to deliver the balance amount after about half an hour near Alpana Cinema, Model Town, Delhi. viii) The case of the prosecution is that the complainant/PW-6 along with the raiding party went near Alpana Cinema, Model Town, Delhi where appellant No.2 came on a second round and was apprehended by the police officials of the Anti-Corruption Branch. Thereafter, appellant No.2 disclosed that the bribe money accepted by him was on behalf of appellant No.1/JE and he had handed over the same to the latter. The search of appellant No.2 was carried out but no recovery was affected. Appellant No.2 led the Raiding Party to MCD workshop office, Model Town, JE Building, Civil Line Zone, Delhi. ix) The case of the prosecution further is that appellant No.2 pointed out towards appellant No.1, who was sitting in the MCD workshop office, Model Town, JE Building, Civil Line Zone, Delhi and stated that he had handed over the bribe amount of ₹20,000/-, comprising six GC notes of ₹1,000/- denomination and twenty-eight GC notes of ₹500/- denomination, into the right hand of Appellant No.1. However, upon the search of Appellant No.1, the said amount was not recovered. x) The case of the prosecution is that the right-hand wash of Appellant No.1, right hand wash and wash of the left pocket of the shirt of Appellant No.2 were taken. Wash of the handle of the motorcycle was also taken and the post-raid proceedings were drawn vide Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. Ex.PW7/A. Rukka vide Ex.PW-9/A was sent to the Anti-Corruption branch, based on which an FIR, Ex.PW-10/B, was registered and both the accused were arrested. xi) The Chargesheet in the matter was filed on 21.04.2007 after obtaining sanction and the FSL Report. After complying with the provisions of Section 207 of the CrPC, order on charge was passed on

04.02.2008 against the appellants alleging that both accused Roop Chand (JE)/Appellant No.1 and Rajesh Kumar @ Raju/Appellant No.2 had conspired to extract a bribe of Rs. 1,00,000/- from the complainant, and in furtherance of this conspiracy, obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 20,000/-, thereby committing offenses under Section 120B IPC read with Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,

1988. Appellant No.1/Roop Chand, as a public servant, obtained illegal gratification through Appellant No.2/Rajesh Kumar @ Raju and committed criminal misconduct under Section 13(1)(d) of the Act. Accused Rajesh Kumar @ Raju was also alleged to have demanded and accepted illegal gratification on the direction of Appellant No.1/Roop Chand, thereby abetting offenses punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d), and 12 of the PC Act. xii) The prosecution to prove the aforesaid charges levelled against the appellant had examined 10 witnesses. The defence, in support of its case, had examined 4 witnesses. The Learned Trial Court, after analyzing the prosecution evidence, the defense evidence, and the Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. statements of the appellants recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, found the appellants guilty of the charges levelled against them and sentenced them accordingly. Hence, the present appeals have been filed assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order on sentence passed by the learned Trial Court. SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS

4. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant no.1, in support of the latter’s appeal, has made the following submissions: - i) Learned Trial Court has erroneously convicted the appellant for the alleged offences under Section 120B read with Section 7, Section 13(2) and Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act, despite material contradictions and deficiencies in the prosecution evidence placed on record during the course of the trial. ii) Learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the Complainant (PW-6) resiled from his initial statements during Examination-in-Chief and was declared hostile, consequently denying the involvement of Appellant No. 1 in the offence and refuting the claim that the appellant demanded money. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. iii) It was submitted that there were glaring contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, particularly between PW-6, PW-7, PW-9, and PW-10, which were contradictory to each and every chain of the false story of the prosecution. iv) It was further submitted that there is inconsistency regarding the place where the hand wash samples of the appellants were taken, with PW-6 and PW-7 asserting it occurred at the Anti-Corruption Branch office, while PW-9 and PW-10 indicated the MCD office. v) The Learned Trial Court failed to note that the panch witnesses stated the raiding team carried phenolphthalein powder with them, which is impermissible and contradicts the procedure established by law. vi) It was submitted that the panch witness (PW-7) was a stock witness of the Anti-Corruption Branch, having participated in multiple raids, thus casting doubt upon the impartiality and credibility of the evidence produced by the prosecution. vii) The learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the hand wash, shirt wash, and other scientific evidence relied on by the prosecution does not connect the appellant with the alleged offence in the absence of demand and acceptance. Signature Not Verified Digitally Signed By:NEETI KUMARI SHARMA Signing Date:18.09.2025 15:48:31 CRL.A. 276/2011& CRL.A. 292/2011. viii) No money was recovered from the appellant or found in his possession. Essential elements required to prove offences under Sections 7 or 13(1)(d) of the PC Act have not been established against the appellant. The prosecution has not demonstrated demand, acceptance, or recovery of any bribe money in relation to the appellant. ix) Learned counsel for the appellant no.1 has placed reliance on the following cases: - i) ii) B. Jayaraj v. State of Andhra Pradesh1; P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. State of A.P.2 x) Thus, it was prayed that, in light of the aforementioned submissions, the impugned judgment of conviction and the order on sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted.

5. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant No.2, in support of the latter’s appeal, has made the following submissions: - i) The appellant is not a government employee nor was he engaged in discharging any “public duty” by virtue of any office or position. Therefore, the provisions of the PC Act are not applicable to him.