YASHWANT RAO MARATHA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25th of March, 1991 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 5/85 by the Special Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and Section 161 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year & to pay fine of Rs. 500/- and R.I. for 1 year, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

(2.) The appellant took defence that he had gone to the canteen/hotel on the request of the complainant (PW-1) and after taking refreshment and tea, complainant gave him Rs. 100/- for making payment of the bill of the canteen/ hotel; there was no demand of illegal gratification from his side and he has never accepted illegal gratification from the complainant. In fact, the appellant gave his clear defence in answer to various questions asked during his examination u/s 313 Cr.P.C. The learned Special Judge, relying on the provisions of Section 4 (1) of the Special Act, held that the appellant admitted to take the tainted note from the complainant, therefore, the presumption will go against him and since he failed to rebut the presumption, he was liable for punishment under the aforementioned Sections of the Special Act and IPC.

(3.) Mr. Abhishek Sinha, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the appellant has fully rebutted the presumption which could have been raised against him; only 3 persons were sitting on the table of the canteen/hotel i.e. appellant, complainant- Muritram (PW-1) and Darshandas (DW-2) and all other members of the trap party were at some distance. They could not depose about the conversation between the appellant and the complainant before handing over the note; Darshandas (DW-2) was a shadow witness; he was not examined by the prosecution; he was examined by the defence who did not support the case of the prosecution or evidence of Muritram (PW-1), he deposed that the note was given for payment of bill of the canteen/ hotel; therefore, it was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant took the tainted note as bribe from the complainant and the presumption against the appellant was rebutted.