BHARAT BHUSHAN PARSOON, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment of conviction dated and order of sentence dated 15.3.2005 passed by Additional Sessions Judge, Bhiwani vide which accused -appellant Mahabir Parshad was held guilty in case FIR No.266 dated 7.9.2001 registered at Police Station, City, Bhiwani for commission of the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter mentioned as the Act) and was sentenced as under: Offence Sentence In default Under Section 7 of RI for six months and fine RI for three months the Act. of Rs.500/ - Under Section 13(2) RI for one year and fine RI for three months of the Act of Rs.1,000/ -
(2.) THE prosecution case put in a narrow compass is being reproduced as below: - 2.1 The appellant -convict (hereinafter mentioned as the accused) was a Municipal Engineer posted with Municipal Committee, Bhiwani (hereinafter referred to as the Committee). Complainant Balbir Singh was a construction contractor with the same Committee. He had supplied consutruction material in Ward No.28 of the said Committee. He contacted the accused for release of the payment. Rs.4,000/ - were demanded as bribe by the accused for doing the needful. The complainant did not want to pay the bribe. 2.2 Sequelly, at the instance of the complainant, a raiding party under the aegis of Deputy Superintendent of Police (DSP), Bhiwani was constituted. In the presence of Rajpal, Shadow witness, currency notes of Rs.4,000/ - in the denomination of Rs.500/ - each were supplied by the complainant. These were initialled by Tehsildar, Bhiwani and were treated with phenolphthalein powder (P Powder) by the Investigating Officer in the presence of Tehsildar, Bhiwani and shadow witness Rajpal. Instructions were given to the complainant to go to the accused along with shadow witness and to hand over the currency notes on demand from the accused as bribe. The remaining members of the raiding party were to come to the office of the accused only after getting pre -determined signal from the shadow witness signifying that the currency notes had exchanged hands from the complainant to the accused as bribe. 2.3 Everything went as was pre -planned. The raid was successful; the accused was caught red handed. Hands as also relevant pocket of the pants of the accused were separately dipped in the sodium carbonate solution which had turned pink. Hand wash as also pocket wash of the pants of the accused were transferred in separate 'nips' which were duly sealed with seal of monogram 'RSA'. FIR was registered, the accused was arrested, spot investigations were conducted, site plan was prepared and 'nips' were later sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for analysis. On receipt of receipt of the said laboratory and on completion of the necessary investigation, report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was furnished against the accused. Charge under Sections 7 and 13(2) of the Act was framed against the accused to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
(3.) TO substantiate the charge under Section 7 and 13 of the Act against the accused, the prosecution had examined as many as 11 witnesses in addition to production of documentary evidence. In his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused had denied the prosecution case claiming innocence. He claimed that in fact a sum of Rs.4,000/ - was due from the contractor on account of trade tax as Rs.3,750/ - and contractor fee of Rs.250/ - and he was legally bound to deposit this amount with the Committee.;