K.L Bakolia vs State Th. Director,C.B.I

3. Shamsher Singh-complainant (PW4) is the sole proprietor of M/s. Colonel’s Security Services working on contract for providing security staff to Indian Agricultural Research Institute (IARI), Pusa, New Delhi on annual basis from 1.03.1993 which was subsequently renewed from year to year basis upto 31.03.1996 and the contract was due for renewal on 1.04.1996. Complainant stated that on 2.04.1996 when he contacted the appellant for renewal of his contract and payment of his outstanding dues, the appellant demanded Rs.50,000/- as a bribe for renewal of contract and when complainant stated that he was not in a position to pay Rs.50,000/-, the bribe amount was reduced to Rs.20,000/- and the complainant was asked to meet the appellant on 3.04.1996 and pay the bribe amount. Complainant was not interested in paying the bribe and on the same day he went to CBI office and narrated the facts. The complainant was asked to come on the next day with Rs.20,000/- by CBI officer. In the evening of 3.04.1996, the appellant rang up the complainant and inquired him as to why he did not contact him on the said date, for which, the complainant replied that he would come to the residence of the appellant on the next day between 1.00 to 2.00 p.m.

4. On 4.4.1996, the complainant visited CBI office and he was asked to submit his complaint in writing. Based on the complaint, FIR was registered in RC No.24(A)/96-CBI/ACB/N.Delhi under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Raiding party was constituted and pre- trap proceedings were conducted and Rs.20,000/- consisting of forty currency notes of rupees five hundred denomination each treated with phenolphthalein powder were given to complainant. As the complainant alone was supposed to go and contact the appellant, a two piece recorder consisting of recorder and mic-cum-transmitter along with audio cassette was put in the pocket of the complainant. A further direction was given to the complainant to give signal to the trap party by saying ‘Gin Leejiye’.

5. The complainant and the trap party went to Pusa Complex at about 1.45 p.m. The complainant after switching on the mic-cum-transmitter went inside the house of the appellant who welcomed him. The appellant inquired from the complainant ‘Laye Ho’ and the complainant replied in the affirmative. When complainant gave the bribe amount of Rs.20,000/- to the appellant, he raised the cushion of the sofa and asked the complainant to keep the money under the cushion of the sofa. As the complainant insisted that the money should be handed over in the hand, the complainant took the tainted money in his right hand and kept it under the cushion of his sofa. The complainant gave the signal ‘Gin Leejiye’ where after the CBI officials rushed into the drawing room of the appellant and questioned him about the bribe money and the appellant was perplexed and kept mum. On instructions from the officer, PW6 lifted the cushion of the sofa and the trap money was recovered. Wash of both the hands of the appellant in the sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Trap laying officer prepared the seizure memo and completed other formalities of trap proceedings. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was filed against the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short ‘the Act’).

10. In this appeal, notice was issued only limited to the question of sentence. The appellant was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for four years on each count of conviction under Section 7 and Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act and the sentence imposed was ordered to run concurrently. The incident had taken place in the year 1996 about nineteen years ago and for all these years the appellant has undergone the agony of criminal proceedings. Keeping in view the passage of time and that the appellant is now aged seventy four years, in our view, while upholding the conviction of the appellant, interest of justice would be met by reducing the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of four years to one year rigorous imprisonment. Application for exemption from surrendering was allowed by the Chamber Judge on 20.09.2013, which was subsequently continued until further orders by this Court’s order dated 25.11.2013. Necessary steps be taken forthwith to take the appellant into custody to serve out the remaining part of the modified sentence. Judgment of the High Court is accordingly modified and this appeal is allowed in part.

May 15, 2015