Ram Kripal Verma (R.K. Verma) vs State of U.P.

Saroj Bala, J.—This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 22.12.2005, whereby convicting the Appellant R.K. Verma for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and sentencing him to simple imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs. 5,000 with default clause for the offence u/s 7 of the Act and simple imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 10,000 with default clause for the offence u/s 13(2) of the Act.

The background facts giving rise to the appeal are these:

The Appellant posted as J.T.O. Telephone Exchange, Rampur, U.P. on 9.7.2002 demanded bribe money of Rs. 700 from the complainant Shoaib Ullah Siddiqui (P.W. 2) for shifting S.T.D. P.C.O. Telephone No. 341081 of Salim Mian (P.W. 8) from Peela Talab, Rampur to Bans Mandi Purana Ganj, near Gupta Nursing Home, Rampur. Shoaib Ullah Siddiqui was doing pairvi for getting the telephone shifted. On 21.6.2002 a demand note of Rs. 630 was issued by the telephone department. The said amount was deposited on 28.6.2002 and telephone line was disconnected. The advice note was issued on 1.7.2002, by the Commercial Officer and was in the custody of the Appellant. The complainant met the Appellant twice or thrice in connection with shifting of telephone but the telephone was not shifted. Again the complainant met the Appellant on 9.7.2002 and requested for shifting the telephone but the Appellant demanded Rs. 700 as illegal gratification. A written complaint (Ext. Ka-12) was made to S.P., C.B.I. Dehradun on 13.7.2002 and Special Case No. R.C. II (A) of 2002/D.A.D. was registered. In pursuant to the complaint made by (P.W. 2) the currency notes which were intended to be given to the Appellant were treated with phenolphthalein powder on the direction of Inspector J.P. Dobhal (P.W. 9) and arrangements for the trap were made. The tainted currency notes were offered by the complainant (P.W. 2) to the Appellant who accepted them in the presence of public witness Sulabh Singh (P.W. 4). The C.B.I. team, waiting outside on being signalled entered the office room of Appellant and recovered tainted currency notes kept under a file at his table. The numbers of tainted currency notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the pre-trap memo. Both the hands of the Appellant were separately dipped in the water and colour of the water turned pink. The pink mixture was sealed in two separate bottles. The recovered tainted notes were sealed in an envelope. The signatures of team members and public witnesses were taken on sealed envelopes and bottles. The recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared and the Appellant was taken into custody.

The Appellant was charged for the offences u/s 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

At the trial C.B.I. examined twelve witnesses in all. P.K. Chandra (P.W. 1) was posted as Advisor H.R.D. and was appointing authority of Appellant. He granted sanction for prosecution (Ext. Ka-1) against the Appellant. S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) was the complainant. Sajid Ali Khan (P.W. 3) proved the seizure memo (Ext. Ka-5) advice note (Ext. Ka-6) and counter signature on the shifting application (Ext. Ka-7). Sulabh Singh (P.W. 4) and Satish Singh (P.W. 5) were public witnesses to the trap. P. Nath (P.W. 6) was posted as Senior Scientific Officer at C.F.S.L. C.B.I., Delhi and examined the contents of the bottles and tainted currency notes. He proved the test report (Ext. Ka-9). Ram Chandra (P.W. 7) proved advice note (Ext. Ka-6) Salim Mian (P.W. 8) was consumer of telephone in question. J.P. Dobhal (P.W. 9) was posted as Inspector C.B.I., Dehradun and headed the trap party. S.I. R.P. Sharma (P.W. 10) and S.I. Devendra Singh (P.W. 11) were members of trap party. Smt. Sharma Maruf (P.W. 12) was Investigating Officer of this case.

The Appellant in his statement u/s 313, Code of Criminal Procedure denied having demanded Rs. 700 from the complainant and having been caught red handed by the C.B.I. trap team while accepting the said amount. He admitted that C.B.I. team had made a trap. He denied having accepted the bribe money. He admitted that his hands were washed in water but could not tell due to memory lapse that the water turned pink. He denied the recovery of tainted currency notes. He admitted the recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared and his signatures were taken over it. He admitted that sanction for prosecution (Ext. Ka-11) was granted by P.K. Chandra (P.W. 1). According to him he has been falsely implicated. The appellant did not examine any witness in defence.

On appraisal of evidence the trial Court came to the conclusion that sanction was granted after application of mind. The demand and acceptance of bribe was proved beyond reasonable doubt.

Heard Shri Dhram Pal Singh, learned senior advocate assisted by Shri N.N. Verma, learned Counsel for the Appellant, Shri G.S. Hajela, learned Counsel for C.B.I. and have gone through the trial Court record.

The learned Counsel has challenged the finding of conviction on the grounds: (i) demand of bribe not proved; (ii) dates of demand of bribe not disclosed by P.W. 2 ; (iii) the complainant has not stated a word about demand of bribe in his deposition ; (iv) the mere recovery of tainted currency notes not sufficient for conviction ; (v) the presumption of Section 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be raised as demand not proved.

The witness S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) is the complainant. The complaint (Ext. Ka-12) was made by him to S.P., C.B.I. on 13.7.2002 with the allegation that on 9.7.2002 the Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 700 for shifting the telephone and refused to shift unless the demand was satisfied. He testified that in pursuance of his complaint a trap was laid on 15.7.2002. The trap party comprising of Inspector J.P. Dobhal, Inspector J.C. Joshi, Devendra Singh, R.P. Sharma, Sulabh Singh and others assembled at P.W.D. Inspection House, Rampur. After completing the necessary formalities the tainted seven currency notes each of 100 denomination treated with phenolphthalein were handed over to him with the instruction to be given to the accused R.K. Verma on demand. The witnesses further stated that on reaching the office of accused R.K. Verma alongwith witness Sulabh Singh, he asked him to get the telephone of S.T.D. P.C.O. shifted. The accused told him that his work would be carried out. Thereafter, he told the accused that the money which he was demanding for the last many days was with him. Accept the money and carry out the work. Thereafter, tainted seven currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination were handed over to the accused. The accused took the money in his hand and the witness came out of the office and signalled the raiding party by touching his hair. He further stated that on being signalled the members of the trap party entered the office of the accused. Inspector J.P. Dobhal caught hold of one of the hand of accused whereas another hand was caught hold by Devendra Singh. The money was recovered from the table of the accused where he was sitting.

The witness Sulabh Singh (P.W. 4) having turned hostile was cross-examined by the prosecution. In his cross-examination he stated that Inspector J.P. Dobhal had disclosed his identity before capturing the accused and told him that he was being arrested for accepting the bribe money. The money was taken from the complainant Siddiqui. The money given by Siddiqui was recovered from the accused. The money was recovered from the table used by the accused.

No suggestion was given to the witness (P.W. 2) on the point of demand of bribe. He categorically stated that money was being demanded by the accused for the last several days which he had brought for him. The complainant asked the accused to take the money and carry out his work. The accused took the money in his hands. This part of the testimony of the witnesses remained unchallenged in the cross-examination.

The witness Satish Singh (P.W. 5) deposed that he was standing on the door of the office room of Appellant. Shoaib Ullah Siddiqui met R.K. Verma and talked to him about shifting of telephone. Shoaib Ullah Siddiqui handed over Rs. 700 (tainted money) to R.K. Verma after talking to him and R.K. Verma took the tainted currency notes in his right hand and kept them under the file which was lying on his office table. After accepting the money the accused said that the work would be carried out. This part of the testimony of the witness brings out that there was demand of bribe and tainted money was handed over and accepted by the Appellant as a reward for doing the public duty.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant has not challenged the recovery part and the bona fides of officials of trap party. His submission was that mere recovery is not sufficient for conviction. On this point the testimony of Inspector, J.P. Dobhal (P.W. 9), S.I. R.P. Sharma (P.W. 10), S.I. Devendra Singh (P.W. 11) S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) and independent witness Satish Singh (P.W. 5) is relevant. The witness J.P. Dobhal (P.W. 9) stated about the pre-trap formalities followed by him. According to him on seeing the signal given by the witness Sulabh Singh the trap party entered the office room and found the accused at his seat. When he introduced himself to the accused he became nervous. He caught hold of left hand of accused and right hand was caught by C.B.I. Official Devendra Singh. Thereafter sodium carbonate mixture was prepared and each hand of the accused was dipped separately in seperate mixtures. The mixture turned pink. The independent witness Sulabh Singh told him that the bribe money was kept by the accused under the file placed at his office table. The independent witness Satish Singh was instructed to take out the bribe money and he recovered the money lying under the file. The numbers of recovered currency notes were compared and tallied with the numbers in the pre-trap memo. To the same effect is the testimony of R.P. Sharma (P.W. 10) and Devendra Singh (P.W. 11).

The witness S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) deposed that he had handed over Rs. 700 (tainted notes) to the accused which the accused took in his hand. Thereafter he came out and signalled the trap party by touching his hair. The members of the pre-trap party entered the office room of the accused and caught hold of him. The money was recovered from the office table of Appellant where he was seated.

The witness Satish Singh (P.W. 5) stated that as instructed the complainant (P.W. 2) and witness Sulabh Singh gave signal by touching their hair and C.B.I. officials entered the office of the accused. He further stated that J.P. Dobhal instructed him to recover the tainted currency notes kept under the file placed on the table of accused. He took out the currency notes which were compared with the pre-trap memo and were the same seven currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination which were treated with P.P. Powder.

The evidence of the witnesses with regard to the recovery of tainted currency notes from the Appellant is of unimpeachable character and cannot be assailed on any count.

Coming to the submission that presumption u/s 20 of Prevention of Corruption Act could be drawn only when the prosecution succeeded in establishing that delinquent public servant accepted illegal gratification. It was contended that handing over of some currency notes to the public servant was not enough to make it acceptance of gratification. In support of the contention, the learned Counsel relied on Suraj Mal Vs. State (Delhi Administration), wherein the Apex Court observed:

In our opinion, mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence in the case is not reliable.

In the cases V. Venkata Subbarao v. State (2006) 13 SCC 305 : 2007 (1) ACR 421 (SC) and Union of India (UOI) thr. Inspector, CBI Vs. Purnandu Biswas, relied on by the learned Counsel for the Appellant, it was held that ''in the absence of proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption would not arise.''

In the case of Purnendu Biswas (supra) it was held that, "demand of illegal gratification by the Respondent has not been proved. Furthermore, Section 20 of the Act is not attracted as Respondent had been charged for the commission of offence u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act.

In the case in hand the prosecution has successfully established the demand of illegal gratification, acceptance of bribe and recovery of tainted currency notes treated with phenolphthalein powder from the Appellant. The Appellant never demurred that these currency notes were not received by him.

Section 20(1) of the Act provides that where, in any trial of an offence punishable u/s 7 or Section 11 or Clause (a) or Clause (b) of Sub-section (1) of Section 13 it is proved that an accused person has accepted or obtained or has agreed to accept or attempted to obtain for himself, or for any other person any gratification (other than legal remuneration) or any valuable thing from any person, it shall be presumed, unless the contrary is proved, that he accepted or obtained or agreed to accept or attempted to obtain that gratification or that valuable thing, as the case may be, as a motive or reward such as is mentioned in Section 7 or, as the case may be, without consideration or for a consideration which he knows to be inadequate.

The three Judges Bench of the Apex Court in M. Narsinga Rao Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh, has held as under:

The only condition for drawing such a legal presumption u/s 20 is that during trial it should be proved that the accused had accepted or agreed to accept any gratification. The section does not say that the said condition should be satisfied through direct evidence.

Inspector J.P. Dobhal (P.W. 9) categorically stated that on 13.7.2002 the complainant S.U. Siddiqui came to his office. The first information report was registered on his complaint. A demand note with regard to shifting of S.T.D. Telephone was shown by him. After discussion with S.P. C.B.I., Dehradun the trap was laid. The complainant S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) and independent witness Satish Singh (P.W. 5) stated that the tainted money was accepted by the Appellant and was kept under the file. From the facts proved a legal presumption can be drawn that the Appellant received/accepted tainted currency notes as a reward for doing public duty. The Appellant simply denied the recovery of currency notes. He admitted that recovery memo (Ext. Ka-4) was prepared and his signatures were taken over it. He admitted that his hands were dipped in the sodium carbonate but did not recollect whether the mixture turned pink. The Appellant having failed to rebut the presumption it is to be held that the Appellant received the tainted money as illegal gratification. The undermentioned observations made by the Apex Court made in this context in Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi Vs. State of Maharashtra, are relevant:

The premise to be established on the facts for drawing the presumption is that there was payment or acceptance of gratification. Once the said premise is established the inference to be drawn is that the said gratification was accepted ''as motive or reward'' for doing or forbearing to do any official act. So the word ''gratification'' need not be stretched to mean reward because reward is the outcome of the presumption which the Court has to draw on the factual premise that there was payment of gratification. This will again be fortified by looking at the collocation of two expressions adjacent to each other like ''gratification or any valuable thing.'' If acceptance of any valuable thing can help to draw the presumption that it was accepted as motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do an official act, the word ''gratification'' must be treated in the context to mean any payment for giving satisfaction to the public servant who received it.

The prosecution having established that Appellant received Rs. 700 as illegal gratification from S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) a legal presumption that such gratification was accepted as a reward for doing the public duty has to be drawn. The evidence of S.U. Siddiqui (P.W. 2) and independent witness Satish Singh (P.W. 5) does not suffer from any infirmity and is found reliable and trustworthy. On these premises the finding of conviction recovered by the trial Court cannot be interfered with.

The learned Counsel for the Appellant alternatively submitted that a lenient view be taken in awarding the sentence and prayed that minimum sentence of one year would serve the ends of justice. The minimum sentence u/s 7 of the Act is six months and for the offence u/s 13(1)(d) of the Act minimum punishment is one year. The age of the Appellant is 55 years. The trial commenced in the year 2003. The bribe money is Rs. 700. Considering these facts the minimum sentence of imprisonment for six months for the offence u/s 7 of the Act and one year u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act will serve the ends of justice.

In view of the above discussion partly allowing the appeal conviction of the accused-Appellant Ram Kripal Verma for the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act is upheld but the sentence awarded by the trial Court is modified to the extent tha t the Appellant shall undergo simple imprisonment for six months u/s 7 and simple imprisonment for one year u/s 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act. Both the sentences shall run concurrently. So far as the fine imposed by the trial Judge with default clause on two separate counts they shall remain unaffected and are confirmed.

The Appellant Ram Kripal Verma was released on bail during the pendency of appeal vide order dated 4.1.2006. The Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad shall cause him to be arrested and lodged in jail to serve the sentence as modified.

Certify the judgment to the lower Court within a week. The original record of the case be transmitted to the Court below immediately. The compliance shall be reported by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Ghaziabad within four weeks from the date of receiving the copy of this order.