- (1.) This appeal is directed against the conviction of the appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant was sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of two years for the offence under Section 7 along with a fine of Rs. 3000/- with a default clause and for a period of two and a half years with a fine of Rs. 1000/- with the usual default clause for the offence under Section 13(2) read with 13(1)(d).
(2.) The case of the prosecution as narrated before the courts below was that P.W. 3 Hamid Khan, the complainant who was running a tailoring shop at F-237, New Seemapuri, Delhi applied for a licence in the year 1994 to the Municipal Corporation of Delhi [for short 'the M.C.D.'], Health Department located in Shahdara Zone, Delhi. In April, 1995, he received a letter from M.C.D. calling upon him to furnish some documents for running the tailoring shop. After furnishing those documents when no further communication was forthcoming from the M.C.D., he approached the appellant who was an employee in the M.C.D., who was the concerned person dealing with his application.
(3.) According to P.W. 3, when he met the appellant on 5th May, 1995 at 3:00p.m. in the office of the appellant, the appellant informed him that to carry out the issuance of licence to him, P.W. 3 will have to pay a fee and that he should pay a sum of Rs. 1,500/- (Rupees One thousand five hundred) by way of bribe amount. As P.W.3 the complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount he stated to have preferred a complaint with the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation [for short 'the C.B.I.'] who in turn organised a trap and along with P.W. 3 the complainant and a shadow witness P.W. 6 was also arranged. The formalities for carrying out the trap were all set on 8th May, 1995. P.W. 3 complainant along with P.W. 6, the shadow witness went to the office of the appellant on 9th May, 1995 and met the appellant and in the course of the conversation when P.W.3 complainant inquired as to whether his job for issuance of licence was carried out, the appellant stated to have answered in the affirmative and in turn wanted to know whether his demand of payment of bribe was ready.;