SHIV NARAYAN NAMDEV Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 19.3.2002 passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'), Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Special Case No.4 of 2000, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was serving as an Assistant Grade-II in the office of City Magistrate, Jagdalpur. After arrest of Jagbandhu, who was a friend of Complainant Sunil Kumar (PW3), an istgasa under Sections 107, 116 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was submitted before the City Magistrate, Jagdalpur. Vide Ex.P20, on 31.7.1999, the City Magistrate, Jagdalpur passed a preliminary order and bail was granted to Jagbandhu, but bail bond was not submitted in compliance with the order of the City Magistrate and thereafter Jagbandhu was sent to jail. According to further case of the prosecution, on 2.8.1999, Complainant Sunil Kumar (PW3) went to the office of City Magistrate and met with the Appellant there. He talked to the Appellant with regard to bail of his friend Jagbandhu. Allegedly, the Appellant made demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/-. Since he did not want to give bribe to the Appellant, he made a written complaint (Ex.P8) to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There he was given a tape recorder and a blank cassette for recording of conversation to be taken between him and the Appellant. On that day itself, he went to the office of City Magistrate and met with the Appellant there. The Appellant again made demand of bribe of Rs.1,000/- and a patta (Rin Pustika). He recorded the conversation took place between him and the Appellant in the tape recorder. Thereafter, he returned to the office of Lokayukta and submitted another written complaint (Ex.P1) on 3.8.1999. He also submitted the tape recorder and the cassette. Panch witnesses Deputy Collector Nand Kumar Soni and Deputy Collector Ganesh Ram Mandavi were called. Both were apprised of the complaint made by Sunil Kumar (PW3). Before these witnesses, Complainant Sunil Kumar (PW3) submitted 8 currency notes of Rs.50/- and 1 currency note of Rs.100/-, total Rs.500/-. A transcription of the conversation took place between the Complainant and the Appellant was prepared by Head Constable Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) vide Ex.P11. A preliminary panchnama (Ex.P3) was prepared before the panch witnesses in which numbers of the currency notes submitted by the Complainant were noted. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Both the panch witnesses and the Complainant were inculcated about the trap proceedings and necessary instructions were given to the Complainant about the said proceedings. Solutions of sodium carbonate were prepared and necessary documents were also prepared in this regard. Thereafter, the trap party including the Complainant reached to the office of City Magistrate, Jagdalpur. In the afternoon at 12:15 O'clock, the Complainant entered the office of City Magistrate. There, the Appellant again made demand of bribe. The Complainant handed over the currency notes of total Rs.500/- which were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and also a patta (Rin Pustika) to the Appellant. Thereafter, he came out and gave a signal to the trap party. Inspector M.L. Negi (PW10) gave his introduction and also of other members of the trap party to the Appellant. The Appellant was inquired about the bribe money. On this, the Appellant took out the money and Rin Pustika from a carton-box kept in a wooden rack placed beside the chair on which he was sitting. On being compared, numbers of the currency notes recovered from the Appellant were matched with the numbers already noted in the preliminary panchnama. Thereafter, hands of the Appellant were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. The recovered currency notes were also dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate and colour of that solution also turned into pink. On completion of other formalities, a panchnama of the complete action taken was prepared. Documents relating to the appointment of the Appellant were obtained. The solutions used during the trap proceedings were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. FSL report is positive. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. Charges were framed against him.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. It was the defence of the Appellant that he did not make any demand for bribe. Virtually, on the request of the Complainant for making arrangement of a surety and for giving money to the surety, he had asked the Complainant for bringing money for the purpose of giving the same to the surety to be arranged. However, no witness has been examined in defence.