RAM SUNDAR KACHHI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 30.12.1993 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, in Special Case No. 04/1985 convicting the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 161 Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d)/5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and pay line of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for five months, on each count.

(2.) Case of the prosecution in brief is that at the relevant time accused/appellant was working as Sub Engineer in the Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board (for short MPEB) and was posted at Bhakhara, District Raipur as Sub Station Incharge. On 16.4.1981 the Shaw Mill and Hauler Mill which was owned by one Shalikram (PW-15) and taken on rent by complainant Shishupal (PW-9), was inspected by the officials of MPEB and certain irregularities were found in the same. On account of the said irregularities, power supply of the said Mill was disconnected. It is alleged that for restoring the power supply the accused/appellant had demanded Rs. 1,000/- but as the complainant was not willing to pay the same, he wrote a complaint letter to the District Collector on 20.4.1981 (Ex. P-35) which was forwarded to the S.P. (Lokayukta) Raipur, who appointed one S.K. Upadhyaya, Inspector, to look into the matter. On 20.4.1981 itself D.S. Gautam (PW-6) and T.S. Tomar (PW-11) were called by the department. Written complaint Ex. P-35 was shown to them and then a trap party was constituted and preparation was made to complete the formalities. Test was demonstrated by applying phenolphthalein powder on the ten currency notes of 100 denomination and then the trap party went to the office of the accused/appellant sometime in the evening. Complainant Shishupal (PW-9), Rama Yadav (PW-14) and Shalikram Sahu (PW-15) entered the office of the appellant and the complainant handed over him the bribe money, Shalikram Sahu came out of the office and gave signal to the trap party. Trap party entered the office and seized the money from the drawer of the table of the accused/appellant. Currency notes were seized by the trap party vide Ex. P-26. Phenolphthalein test of both the hands of the accused/appellant was conducted which proved positive. Further investigation was taken up by S.K. Upadhyaya (PW-21). After examining the witnesses and obtaining sanction the charge sheet was filed against the accused/appellant on 1.8.1985.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 21 witnesses in support of its case. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. The accused/appellant, however, has taken the defence that alleged amount of Rs. 1,000/- was accepted by him for restoration of the power supply but the receipt could not be prepared because though the concerned clerk was summoned through the peon, in the meanwhile the trap was laid.