SHANTARAM SOMWANSHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment and order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur in Criminal Appeal No. 499 of 1990, dated 26.09.2005. By the impugned judgment and order, the High Court had partly upheld the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court in Special Case No. 4 of 1981 dated 07.05.1990. The prosecution's case is that the Appellant had been employed as a Station Health Inspector in Central Railways, Jabalpur since the year 27.08.1979. While so employed, the Appellant habitually demanded a bribe of Rupee One per day from the casual sweepers working under his supervision in exchange for continuing their employment as casual sweepers. On 12.06.1980, the complainant (PW-21), who had previously worked under the Appellant as a casual sweeper, approached the Appellant and requested him to continue his employment as a casual sweeper. However, the Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 25/- as bribe from the complainant for doing the same.

(2.) On 13.06.1980, the complainant filed a written complaint against him before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur who forwarded the same to PW-19, the Investigating Officer. PW-19 then registered an FIR and completed pre-trap proceedings including smearing the trap money with phenolphthalein powder. Immediately thereafter, the trap party reached the railway station where the Appellant's office was situated. The complainant then approached the Appellant who asked him to hand over the bribe amount to one Maniklal, his deputy, who was present at the time. The Appellant and Maniklal then left. However, Maniklal returned after a short period of time and the complainant handed over the bribe amount to him. On the complainant's signal, the trap team entered the premises and questioned Maniklal who admitted to having received the bribe amount on the Appellant's instructions. The bribe amount was seized and the sodium carbonate test was conducted which gave a positive result. At the same time, the Appellant also arrived on the scene and was arrested. Subsequently, the investigation was completed and on sanction for prosecution being received, a charge sheet was filed before the Trial Court.

(3.) Thereafter, on the Appellant and Maniklal appearing before the Trial Court, charges were framed against them for offences Under Section 5(1)(a) read with Section 5(2) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, "the Act") and Sections 161 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short, "the Indian Penal Code"). The charges were read over and explained to the two accused (the Appellant and Maniklal) who pleaded not guilty. Consequently, the case was committed to trial.