MADAN RAM Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed against the impugned judgment and order dated 28.2.2002 passed by Special Judge/ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Criminal Case No. 09/1997 convicting the accused/Appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 1000, in default of payment of fine to further undergo simple imprisonment for three months, on each count.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the Appellant was posted as Inspector (Weight and Measurement) at Raipur. Complainant namely Sanjiv Agrawal (PW-1) was having the licence of "C" Class Instruments Repairing Work of the Machines in the department of Weight and Measurement. On 16.10.1996 a written complaint (Ex. P-2) was made by the complainant to the Superintendent of Police (Lokayukta) Raipur alleging that the accused/ Appellant who was working as Inspector (Weight and Measurement) was illegally harassing him for last two years as a result of which he had suffered financial loss and mental agony. Though the complainant approached the accused/Appellant on several occasions, he had not allotted him the work and was demanding Rs. 400 as bribe for the said purpose. It is alleged that the complainant did not want to give this bribe amount to the accused/Appellant and in order to create an example in the society he made a request for taking appropriate action against him. On receiving the said complaint, a tape-recorder was given to him for recording the conversation between the accused and the complainant. The complainant took the said tape-recorder along with him and again approached the accused/Appellant at about 12.30 p.m. on 16.10.1996 itself. Conversation between the accused and the complainant was recorded. Complainant then went to the office of Lokayukta where the written complaint Ex. P-l was taken from him. After receiving the aforesaid written complaint, Panchnama of tape recorder (Ex. P-3) was prepared. Transcription of the conversation between the accused/Appellant and the complainant was made vide Ex. P-4 and then after calling the independent officers namely B.B. Dixit and Mahavir Prasad Agrawal, commercial tax officers, written complaint of the complainant was shown to them and pre-trap Panchnama Ex. P-5 was prepared. Tape recorder was seized vide Ex. P-6. After constitution of the trap party all the formalities for laying the trap were completed. Demonstration of test by applying phenolphthalein powder on the four currency notes of 100 denominations was made and then the trap party went to the office of the accused/appeilant in the evening hours. Complainant Sanjiv Agrawal (PW-1) entered the office of the accused/Appellant, handed over the amount to him and after receiving the signal from him the trap party also entered the office and seized the money from the table of the accused/Appellant. Seizure Panchnama Ex. P-7 was prepared and the currency notes were seized by the trap party vide Ex. P-14. Both the hands of the accused/Appellant were washed in Sodium Carbonate solution which ultimately proved positive. Further investigation was taken up by one Satish Kumar Dubey (PW-10). After examining the witnesses and obtaining sanction to prosecute the accused/Appellant the charge sheet was filed on 10.4.1997.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/Appellant guilty, prosecution has examined 10 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. This apart, one Ajay Kumar Pathak (DW-1) has also been examined by the defence in support of its case. The accused/Appellant however has taken a defence that the alleged amount of Rs. 400 was never demanded by him but it was forcefully thrusted by the complainant in the pocket of his pant. He then took out the money from his pocket and put the same on the table asking the complainant to come to him on the next day to collect the receipt as the office time was over.