Sukhbir Singh Bedi vs State

S. Muralidhar, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 23rd December 1983 passed by the learned Special Judge, Delhi in C.C. No. 50/81convicting the appellant u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(i)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 (PC Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code ( IPC ) and sentencing him to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment ( RI ) for the offences u/s 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) PC Act and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for further six months. The appellant was sentenced to undergo one year RI for the offence u/s 161 IPC.

The case of the prosecution is that the complainant Sikander Lal Kumar, a resident of 7/20, Punjabi Bagh, New Delhi was one of the owners and proprietors of Chinar restaurant which had an outlet each in Connaught Place and Moti Nagar. At around 8.30 pm on 23rd June 1980 the accused appellant Sardar Saheb @ Bedi, Assistant Engineer (Enforcement) of Delhi Electricity Supply Undertaking ( DESU ) along with another person approached him at his restaurant in Moti Nagar. The accused questioned Sikander Lal about using an air conditioner despite there being a ban on its use. The accused reminded him that this had happened despite his visiting the restaurant 15 days earlier and cautioning the Manager, Bhushan. Sikander Lal informed the accused that he was aware of the ban but that a senior officer of DESU had said that that in a restaurant without windows it was permissible to use an air conditioner. When shown the notification to that effect, the accused observed that there was nothing new about the notification; that he was any way going to pass an order disconnecting the electricity and that the complainant was free to seek clarification from any Court or officer in this regard. Faced with the predicament of the resultant substantial loss of business, the complainant asked the accused to suggest a via media as to how he could continue to use the air conditioner in the restaurant. According to the complainant, the accused then demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000. A bargain was struck at Rs. 700/- on the condition that this fact should not be brought to the notice of the Inspector of the accused or otherwise the accused would be compelled to share this amount with his Inspector. Upon the complainant agreeing, the accused demanded that the payment be made at once. The complainant paid a sum of Rs. 400/- to the accused and promised to pay the balance later. The accused then informed the complainant that he was a resident of Paharganj and he would collect the remaining amount at the Connaught Circus restaurant on 26th June 1980 around 3 or 4 pm.

The complainant then approached the Anti Corruption Branch on 26th June 1980 at about 11.45 am. His statement was recorded by Inspector Balraj Nanda PW-12 who made arrangement for the panch witnesses Shri H.C. Sharma, PW-7 and Shri C.D. Sapra, PW-8. The complainant supplied three currency notes of Rs. 100/- each to PW-12 Shri Balraj Nanda. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder. The complainant kept the treated currency notes in the front pocket of his bush-shirt. PW-12 and PW-8 washed their hands. The complainant was asked to pass on the said currency notes to the accused after talking a bit loudly and to indicate that it was the balance payment of the bribe. The panch witnesses were asked to remain near the complainant to hear the talk and observe the passing on of the money to the accused. They were advised to give a sign by rubbing their heads with their hand as soon as they were satisfied that the bribe transaction was concluded. This all was incorporated in the document Ex.PWB.

At around 1.40 pm PW-12 organized a raiding party consisting of Inspector Kishan Chand PW-13, Inspector Vijay Malik, PW-11, Shri Narain Dutt, Assistant Sub Inspector, Constables Shankar Dass, Mahender Singh and Jang Bahadur besides the complainant and the panch witnesses. The raiding party had reached the Chinar restaurant at Connaught Circus at 2.05 pm on 26th June 1980. It was thereafter decided that the complainant would sit in his cabin along with Shri H.C. Sharma, PW-7 who would play the role of an accountant.

In the evidence of the complainant Sikander Lal the events that transpired thereafter have been described in some detail. The accused reached the hotel at near about 3 or 3.15 pm. The complainant and the accused sat on the first floor in the office. The accused was accompanied by one more person who remained outside. An order was placed for a cold drink. The accused then enquired about his account whereupon the complainant reminded him that the bargain had been settled at Rs. 700/- and that he should accept the remaining amount of Rs. 300/-. The complainant then handed over the said amount of Rs. 300/-. The accused demanded a further sum of Rs. 50/- which the complainant refused. According to the complainant, the accused had accepted the tainted currency notes in his right hand and then kept the same in the pocket of his bush-shirt. The complainant then gave a signal and the raiding party rushed upstairs. The Inspector asked the accused to raise his hands. On being asked whether he had accepted the bribe money from the complainant, the accused kept quiet. A little thereafter the accused told the Inspector that he had not accepted any bribe. The right hand of the accused was dipped in the colourless solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink. The wash was transferred into neat and clean bottle, which was labeled, sealed and signed by the panch witnesses. Pocket of the bush-shirt was also dipped in the colourless solution which also turned pink. This was transferred into another bottle. The accused was arrested and a personal search memo was prepared.

Before the learned trial court, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and on behalf of the defense 16 witnesses were examined. At the end of trial, the learned trial court came to the conclusion that the defense set up by the accused was not believable and that the guilt of the accused was established beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court proceeded to sentence the appellant as indicated in the first paragraph of this judgment.

Mr. K.T.S. Tulsi, learned Senior counsel appearing for the Appellant, first submitted that the evidence of PW-6 (the complainant) contained several material contradictions and that he was an untrustworthy witness. He submits that the initial version of the complainant in his statement to the police was that the bribe had been demanded from him whereas while deposing in the court he stated that the bribe had been demanded by the accused through the Manager of the complainant s restaurant. Mr. Tulsi assailed the conclusion of the trial court that this was not a material contradiction. He points out that statement of the complainant that it was the Manager who informed him of the demand of bribe by the accused constituted hearsay and Therefore was inadmissible. In other words, on the material aspect of demand and acceptance of bribe the case of the prosecution rested on hearsay. He relied upon the judgment in Duraisami v. State of Tamil Nadu 2005 SCC (Cri) 1508. On the other hand Mr. Saxena, learned APP supported the conclusion drawn by the trial court that this apparent contradiction was not a material one. There was no motive for the police to falsely implicate the appellant. The evidence of PW-6 that the demand of Rs. 1,000/- made by the accused through the Manager was consistent with the case of the prosecution on demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant when seen in the light of the subsequent events which have been proved beyond reasonable doubt.

This Court had perused the record and is inclined to concur with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court that the contradiction was not material enough to entirely discredit the version of PW 6. This has also to be seen in the light of the subsequent event of the accused meeting the complainant at an appointed hour at the restaurant in Connaught Place. There were two parts to the transaction in the present case where the demand and part acceptance was on one date and the acceptance of the remaining amount of bribe on a later date. The evidence in relation to both parts of the transaction when seen as a whole fully supports the case of the prosecution. The prosecution case in this regard stands proved beyond reasonable doubt through the evidence of PW 6 which is both cogent and reliable. PW 7 and PW 8 support the version of PW 6. Although it was sought to be suggested that PWs 7 and 8 are not independent witnesses, their cross examination has not elicited anything to discredit their version. The decision in Duraisami appears to have turned on its own facts and can have no application in the instant case.

It was then submitted that the complainant was not a reliable witness as he had an axe to grind against the appellant in relation to the earlier incident of 6th June 1980 when a challan was issued. Also, the complainant had a nexus with the police. Mr. Tulsi made elaborate reference to the past events, as narrated by the accused in his statement u/s 313 CrPC (which included a lengthy written statement dated 8th June 1983). He submitted that the enmity with the police officers in the past was the motive for their falsely implicating the accused. He referred to the evidence of DWs.4,8,15 and 16 to suggest the alternative version that the accused came to the Chinar Restaurant at Connaught Place on 26th June, 1980 for the purpose of an amicable settlement between him and the police officers. It was submitted that even if there was a ring of truth in what the accused was saying, the benefit of doubt should be given to the accused. Reliance was placed on the decisions in Ganga Kumar Srivastava Vs. The State of Bihar, and M. Abbas Vs. State of Kerala, .

This Court has carefully perused the records of the case and the depositions of the witnesses referred to. The trial court too had after examining the evidence come to the conclusion that there was no reason to presume that each of the police officers involved in the investigation of the case was inimical to the accused or were acting at the behest of the complainant. Further, the trial court concluded that the complainant had met the accused only three days prior to the date of the raid and it was unlikely that they had developed such a cordial relationship that the accused would seek his help for a settlement between him and the police officers. This Court is inclined to concur with the conclusion arrived at by the trial court in its reasoned judgment. The cross-examination of many of these witnesses is not supportive of the defense version at all.

It was next submitted that the prosecution story as regards the raid had too many inconsistencies and at best it was a paper transaction not corroborated by the prosecution witnesses themselves. It was submitted that the actual alleged handing over of the balance amount of Rs. 300 is stated to have taken place on the first floor which did not have a window and when there was a power failure. Accordingly it is submitted that there was not enough light to even witness the proceedings. It is submitted that the sodium carbonate solution which was supposed to be pink in colour was, at the time of recording of the deposition of PW-8 on 11th January, 1993, colourless and Therefore, prosecution was unable to prove the fact that the accused had himself handled the notes which were covered with the phenol phthalein powder. As regards the absence of light in the room, this Court finds that this line of argument was not adopted during the cross- examination of the concerned prosecution witnesses. In any event nothing has been elicited from them to suggest that the room was so dark and that the door was also shut to make it impossible to anyone to witness what transpired there. As regards the sodium carbonate solution turning colourless, as rightly observed by the trial court, the evidence of the defense witness Dr. Siddharth Ghosh as well as Shri C.D. Sapra (PW-8) this is quite probable with the passage of time. This Court is satisfied that the conclusion of the trial court in this behalf is on a correct analysis of the evidence and does not call for interference. No other points were urged.

For all the above reasons, this Court does not find any infirmity in the impugned judgment and order of the learned trial court. The appeal is accordingly dismissed with no order as to costs.