9911796707
TMI Blog2018 (10) TMI 1772X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ction and sentence awarded by order dated 31.05.2001 passed by the Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 53 of 1995 acquitting him of the charge Under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as "IPC") and convicting him for the charges Under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the PC Act") and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and to pay a fine of Rs. 40,000/- Under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the PC Act cumulatively, in default of payment of fine, he shall further undergo simple imprisonment for six months. 2. In order to appreciate the issues involved in this appeal, few facts need ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... 13(2) and 13(1)(d) of the PC Act read with Section 120-B of Indian Penal Code in the Court of Special Judge Delhi. The prosecution examined their witnesses to prove the three charges framed against both the Accused. The Appellant also adduced defense evidence. 8. By judgment dated 31.05.2001, the Trial Court (Special Judge) held that the prosecution failed to prove the case of any conspiracy between the Appellant (A-1) and co-accused Rajinder Kumar (A-2) in relation to the offences in question and, therefore, the charge of conspiracy against them Under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code was held as not made out. Both the Accused were, therefore, acquitted of the charge of conspiracy Under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 9. The finding on th ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... Kumar nor even file any appeal against the acquittal of the Appellant from the offence Under Section 120-B Indian Penal Code. 13. The Appellant (A-1), felt aggrieved by his conviction and sentence under the PC Act, filed criminal appeal in the High Court at Delhi. By impugned order, the High Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the judgment of the Trial Court which has given rise to filing of the present appeal by way of special leave by the Appellant (A-1) in this Court. 14. Heard learned Counsel for the parties. 15. Mr. Rishi Malhotra, learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant (A-1) while assailing the legality and correctness of the impugned order mainly argued two points. 16. In the first place, learned Counsel contended that ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... w that the Appellant did not accept the money but it was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar (A-1). 20. It was, therefore, urged that since the acceptance of bribe money was not proved qua the Appellant and nor it was proved that Rajinder Kumar accepted it for and on behalf of the Appellant, the Appellant's conviction under any of the provisions of the PC Act much less Under Sections 7, 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) was not legally sustainable and hence it deserves to be set aside. 21. In reply, learned Counsel for the Respondent (CBI) supported the reasoning and the conclusion arrived at by the two Courts below and contended that no case for any interference in the impugned judgment is made out and hence t ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... around 11.30 AM to 11.55 AM in the DESU office demanded Rs. 4000/- from the complainant and directed him to pay the said money to Rajinder Kumar-co accused, who accepted the said money on his behalf. 25. In our considered opinion, when the charge against both the Accused in relation to conspiracy was not held proved and both the Accused were acquitted from the said charge which, in turn, resulted in clean acquittal of Rajinder Kumar from all the charges under the PC Act, a fortiori, the Appellant too was entitled for his clean acquittal from the charges under the PC Act. 26. It is not the case of the prosecution that the Appellant had conspired with another person and even though the identity of the other person was not established, yet ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... plea of conspiracy against the Appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs. 4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the Appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable Under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the Appellant. 31. In our view, the prosecution, therefore, failed to prove the factum of acceptance of bribe money of Rs. 4000/- by the Appellant from the Complainant on 29.03.1995 as per the charges framed against him. 32. Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
