LexR.P.S. YADAV versus CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2015] 1 S.C.R. 789
R.P.S. YADAV
v.
CENTRAL BUREAU OF INVESTIGATION
(Criminal Appeal No.9 of 2012)
JANUARY 28, 2015
[FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHAIM KALIFULLA AND
ABHAY MANOHAR SAPRE, JJ.]
A
B
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - ss. 7, 13(2) rw s.
13(1 )(d} - Public servant taking gratification for an official act
C
- Appellant-MCD employee allegedly took bribe from the
complainant for issuance of licence -
Conviction and
·sentence of the appellant u/ss. 7, 13(2) rw s.13(1}(d) by the
courts below, on the basis of the evidence of the complainant
and the trap witnesses -
Sustainability of - Held: Not
D
sustainable - No legally acceptable evidence either from the
complainant or from the other so called independent witness
or the shadow witness in order to show that the mandatory
requirement for conviction ulss. 7, 13(2) read with 13(1 )(d)
namely, the demand, ·acceptance and recovery was
E
chronologically proved as against the appellant - Thus, the
order of conviction and sentence by the courts below set
aside.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 9 of 2012.
From the judgment and Order dated 08.04.2011 of the
High Court of Delhi at New Delhi in criminal Appeal No. 107
of 2002.
Brajesh Kumar Singh, Anil Kumar Tandale for the
Appellant.
Vibha Dutta Makhija, Rashmi Malhotra, Disha Vaish,
Arvind Kumar Sharma for the Responsdent.
F
G
789
H
790
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2015] 1 S.C.R.
A
The following Order of the Court was delivered
ORDER
1. This appeal is directed against the conviction of the
appellant under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1 ){d)
B 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
C 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
D 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
E 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
F 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 pf 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
G with the respondent-Central Bureau of Investigation [for short
'the C.B.1.'J 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
H shadow witness went to the office of the appellant on 9th May,
R.P.S. YADAV v. CENTRAL BUREAU OF
791
INVESTIGATION
1995 and met the appellant and in the course of the
A
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.
4. When P.W. 3 - the complainant informed him that he
B
has brought what was demanded by the appellant, the appellant
directed P.W. 3 the complainant to go along with A2, one
Janakraj to whom P.W. 3 was directed to handover the money,
i.e., the demanded bribe money. Thereafter A2 Janakraj is
stated to have taken P.W. 3 along with P.W. 6 to a nearby park
C
outside the office of M.C.D. where the money was stated to have
been handed over to A2 and thereafter as per the signal waived
by P.W. 6, the C.B.I. party reached the spot and A2 was
confronted from whom the money paid by P .W. 3 was recovered
and the handExcerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.