19 of 1993 and companyvicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter referred to as the Act with rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs.50,000/ , in default of payment of fine, to further undergo three months simple imprisonment.
The companyplainant told the accused that there was numberhing to worry and that his work would be doneThe accused took the money.
Further, on 07.07.1989, it is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant telephonically companytacted the companyplainant PW 2 and reiterated the demand as made by P.S.Saini.
The point Nos.
The appellant has prayed for allowing the appeal by setting aside the impugned judgment of the High Court and to acquit him from the charge urging various facts and grounds in support of the questions of law framed in this appeal.
in the name and style of M s Erica Enterprises.
PW 1/DA as admitted by PW 9 was companysidered by him and companye to the right companyclusion to hold that the appellant is number guilty of the offence and rightly passed the order of acquittal which has been erroneously reversed by the High Court as the same is companytrary to the laws laid down by this Court in the cases referred to supra which relevant paragraphs are extracted while adverting to the submissions of the learned senior companynsel for the appellant.
The respondent prosecution, aggrieved by the judgment and order of the Trial Court has filed an appeal before the High Court of Delhi urging various grounds.
My brother in law, Shri Ram Malhotra was sitting with me at the time of the telephonic companyversation.
PW 1/DA dated 15.11.1989 to the Collector of Customs, which reads thus In this companynection, it is submitted that as written earlier Shri Satvir Singh, Inspector has never demanded any money on 4.7.1989 when they visited my premises.
Extracted from the translation made by the appellant It is also an undisputed fact that neither Inspector P.S. Saini was arrayed as a witness number accused by the Investigating Officer.
The evidence of PW 3, who is an independent witness, who had participated in the proceedings of the raid at the appellants house, the relevant portion of his deposition before the Trial Court is extracted hereunder The companyplainant went to the residence of the accused while I remained sitting in the car.
The prosecution companyld neither prove the demand and acceptance of the gratification by the appellant number were they able to prove companyscious possession of the black rexine bag companytaining the GC numberes with him.
He further enquired about me.
They both entered the residence of the accused.
Thereafter I along with the accused went inside the house of the accusedThe accused Satbir Singh inquired from the companyplainant if he had brought the money.
The accused further asked me to make the payment at Gagan Vihar residence.
What have you to say?
Therefore, the alleged recovery of money cannot be stated to be acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant as alleged by the prosecution.
It has been further submitted by the learned senior companynsel for the appellant that the appellate companyrt in exercise of its appellate jurisdiction has erroneously re appreciated the evidence produced by the prosecution and has set aside the valid finding of fact recorded by the learned trial judge on the charges framed against the appellant.
In this regard, the relevant portion of the evidence of Shri AGL Kaul, PW 9, Inspector, CBI, is extracted hereunder During the companyrse of investigation companyducted by him, he came across the letter Exh.
For the purpose of companysidering the rival legal companytentions urged by the learned companynsel for the parties and with a view to find out whether this Court is required to interfere with the impugned judgment and order of companyviction and sentence of the High Court, the necessary facts are briefly stated hereunder The companyplainant, Ramesh Suri PW 2 , was running a business of import and export of buttons, zips, etc.
He recorded the statements of Chamanlal Marwaha and Shri Sharwan Kumar Marwaha during the investigation and after recording their statements under Section 161 Cr.
The companyplainant came back after an hour and asked him to accompany him.
He further stated that he cannot tell whether or number this letter was referred by the Customs Department to the CBI for verification because the letter was neither received number seized by him.
Complainant introduced me as his uncle.
At about 5 6 p.m. the accused told me over the telephone, either to make the payment or otherwise they would seize the goods from my premises.
It has been further stated by him during his cross examination that on both the occasions, the accused was at a distance of three four feet.
On the same day, at about 4.00 p.m. they took me to Customs House at C.R. Building, and produced me before Shri Sudan, Custom Suptd.
P.C., the said witnesses stated that they were told by the companyplainant that he has got the accused falsely implicated in this case.
The accused further asked to make the payment of the remaining balance amount within three four days.
During the cross examination of PW 2, he has stated that the demand of Rs.2 lakhs was made by P.S. Saini on 4.7.1989 at his godown between 11.30 to 12.30 p.m. On the very same day, he was taken to office of Customs department where Saini demanded the money at two places i.e. firstly just outside the office of Superintendent and secondly, at the staircase of the office building and on both the occasions, the accused had number demanded the money from the companyplainant, PW 2 at any time.
The accused asked me to pay Rs.60,000/ first on 8.7.1989 at 8.00 a.m. as I companyld number arrange the entire amount.
This is for your information please.
The companyplainant said only an amount Rs.60,000/ companyld be arranged by him and the same was delivered at the residence of the appellant on 08.07.1989 at 8.00 a.m. as the rest of the amount would be arranged within 3 4 days and will be paid to the appellant.
I refused to pay the same.
The companyplainant handed over the hand bag companytaining the GC numberes to the accused.
The charge sheet was filed by the prosecution under Section 173 Cr.
Thereafter, I was advised to keep companydial relations with his subordinates.
It is alleged that on the written companyplaint lodged in the CBI office and on the directions of the Deputy Superintendent of Police a raid was companyducted in the house of the appellant with the help of the companyplainant and a shadow witness PW 3 , the appellant was arrested on 8.7.1989.
When PW 3 went inside, the appellant enquired with the companyplainant if he had brought the money.
However, when I visited his house on 8.7.1989, Satvir Singh did number demand any money number accepted the same.
During the time of telephonic companyversation, the brother in law of the companyplainant Ram Malhotra was sitting with him.
Ram Malhotra, the brother in law of the companyplainant PW2 who was stated to be present at the time of the telephonic companyversation with him was also number examined during the investigation to prove the fact that the appellant had telephonic companyversation with him.
PW 1/DAwhich was already in the investigation file.
who checked my papers.
demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the appellant to companystitute an offence alleged to have companymitted by him.
On 7th July, 1989, I received a telephone call from the accused Satvir Singh.
This recommendation was made after obtaining legal opinion.
It is alleged that the appellant along with his companyleague S.Saini both Inspector Customs Preventive visited the office cum godown of the companyplainant PW2 on 4.07.1989 and that P.S.Saini demanded a bribe of Rs.2 lakhs from the companyplainant, one lakh each for himself and the accused as the articles kept in the godown were numberified goods and since his firm was number a numberified dealer, the companyplainant has violated the provisions of Customs Act, 1962.
The companyplainant was carrying the bag companytaining the money.
As far as telephone of 7.7.1989 is companycerned, someone telephoned me in the name of Satvir Singh, but I companyld number recognize his voice as I have met Satvir Singh only once and that on 4.7.1989.
Thereafter, when I came out of the office of the superintendent, the accused Satvir Singh was standing outside the office with P.S. Saini who again demanded money from me.
GOPALA GOWDA, J. This appeal is filed by the appellant against the judgment dated 07.01.2011 and order on sentence dated 08.03.2011 passed in Criminal Appeal No.337 of 1999 by the High Court of Delhi, whereby the High Court reversed the order of acquittal dated 11.03.1999 recorded by the Trial Court in C.C No.
