State Of Gnct Delhi v. Devendra Singh

$~34 *

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI

+ CRL.L.P. 207/2012 STATE OF GNCT DELHI ..... Petitioner Through:

Mr.Ashish Dutta, APP.

versus DEVENDRA SINGH ..... Respondent Through:

Mr. Sumit Kr. Khatri with Mr.

Girijesh Kr. Gay & Mr. Varun Kumar, Advs.

CORAM:

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE ASHUTOSH KUMAR

O R D E R

% 08.08.2017 The respondent was charged with the allegation of demanding bribe of Rs.1000/- from one Tara Chand Pandey, the complainant for issuing electoral certificate and of having accepted Rs.500/- for the same purpose. On receiving of the complaint against the respondent, a raid was organised and the respondent is said to have been nabbed with the tainted money.

The respondent was thereafter put on trial. The Trial Court after examining 12 witnesses gave benefit of doubt to the respondent and acquitted him of all the charges.

The Trial Court took note of the fact that proper sanction (Exh.PW2/A) had been accorded for the prosecution of the respondent. However, the Trial Court found that the complainant, PW-5, contrary to his statement recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C, stated at the trial that his statement (Exh.PW-5/A) was recorded by the IO and that pre and post raid proceedings took place in his presence.

PW-5 has denied that the respondent had demanded Rs.1000/- from him for issuing electoral certificate on 15.03.2007 but admitted of having given Rs.500/- to him on the same day.

Since the demand of bribe was not affirmed by PW-5, the Trial Court took pains to ascertain from the deposition of other witnesses as to whether any demand was made.

The averments in the complaint (Exh.PW-1/A) indicated demand of bribe by one official of D.C office (Electoral Registration Office), Nand Nagri, Delhi. The respondent, in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C has stated that he worked as a peon and had no concern with the issuance of any certificate. Only C.P.Bhardwaj, PW-11, a Lower Division Clerk was competent to issue certificate to the complainant. In view of the aforesaid, the Trial Court doubted the very demand of bribe amount. Mere acceptance of money without there being any other evidence regarding demand for the same would not be sufficient for convicting an accused under The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. In the absence of proof of demand, the question of raising the presumption about the guilt of the respondent does not arise at all.

The Trial Court also found the raid proceedings to be doubtful. Hence the respondent was given the benefit of doubt. This Court finds no reason to interfere with the judgment and order of acquittal on benefit of doubt.

Leave is declined.

ASHUTOSH KUMAR, J AUGUST 08, 2017/k