ALI MOHAMMAD KHAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4.5.2010 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Case No.9 of 2003, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as a Lower Division Clerk at Primary Health Centre, Lohandiguda, District Bastar. At that time, Complainant Urmila Bijlekar (PW1) was posted as a Mahila Bahu-Uddeshiya Swasthay Karyakarta at Prathmik Swasthay Kendra, Anjar, Sector Taragaon, Lohandiguda, District Bastar. According to the case of the prosecution, payment of the Complainant for the period from April, 2002 to June, 2002 was not done and her leave surrender amount for March, 2002 was also not paid. Work of preparation of pay-bills was of the Appellant. The Complainant approached the Appellant and the C.M.H.O. many times for preparation of her bill for payment, but they did not pay attention. On 22.7.2002, the Complainant went to the house of the Appellant and talked about for payment. The Appellant demanded bribe of Rs.500/- for early preparation of her bill for payment and asked her to come at his house next day in the evening. Since she did not want to give him the bribe money, she made a written complaint (Ex.P1) to the Lokayukta. On the basis of Ex.P1, First Information Report (Ex.P26) was registered. Inspector R.S. Dhruw (PW14A) called panch witnesses, namely, Ravendra Kumar (PW3) and Deepak Sharma (not examined). Both the panch witnesses were introduced with the Complainant and they also read the complaint (Ex.P1). The Complainant submitted 5 currency notes each of Rs.100/- in presence of the panch witnesses for trap proceedings. Constable Ramsevak Sinha (PW5) smeared phenolphthalein powder on those 5 currency notes and thereafter kept them in the purse of the Complainant. A demonstration of trap proceedings was given to the Complainant. Head Constable Ramlal Gangesh (PW7) prepared a solution of sodium carbonate and filled the same in a bottle and sealed the same. Two specimen packets of sodium carbonate were also prepared and sealed. A panchnama of preliminary action was prepared vide Ex.P5. The trap party proceeded towards the house of the Appellant. On the way, the Complainant made a telephonic call at the house of the Appellant. She came to know that the Appellant was in his office. Then the trap party proceeded towards the office of the Appellant. At about 3:20 p.m., the Complainant entered the office room of the Appellant and told him that she had come along with the bribe money of Rs.500/-. The Appellant demanded the money. She gave him the bribe money. The Appellant wrapped the bribe money and kept in the pocket of his shirt. After sometime, both the Complainant and the Appellant came out and they started talking with each other standing near the vehicle of the Appellant. Then the Complainant gave a signal to the trap party. The trap party reached the spot. The Complainant told that the Appellant had kept the bribe money in the pocket of his shirt. Then the Appellant, on getting introduced with the trap party, trembled and took out the bribe money from his pocket. The trap party caught him. Thereafter, hands of the Appellant were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. Numbers of the bribe money, i.e., the currency notes recovered from the Appellant were compared with the numbers already noted in the preliminary panchnama. The numbers matched. The recovered currency notes were also dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. Shirt of the Appellant was also dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. Seizures were made and the Appellant was arrested. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory vide Ex.P30. FSL report is Ex.P31, which is positive. Sanction for prosecution (Ex.P38) was obtained. Other material documents were collected. 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 20 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the guilt. No witness has been examined in defence.