ROHIT KUMAR SAHU Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 20.9.1999 passed by the Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No.7 of 1993, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act') as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently

(2.) According to the case of prosecution, at the relevant time, the Appellant was working as a Patwari of Patwari Halka No.104, Village Lawan. In favour of Complainant Baburam (PW6), the Tahsildar passed an order for correction in the relevant mutation record. On 28.10.1988, the Complainant met with the Appellant and talked for the correction. The Appellant demanded bribe of Rs.250 and asked him to bring the bribe money by 1.11.1988. Since the Complainant did not want to give the bribe, on 1.11.1988, he made a written complaint (Ex.P3) to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Raipur. On the basis of Ex.P3, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P11) was registered. Investigating Officer C.K. Tiwari (PW11) called panch witnesses Ajay Awasthi (PW3) and R.P. Sharma (PW4). The panch witnesses verified the contents of the complaint (Ex.P3) from the Complainant. The Complainant produced 2 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100 and 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.50 for giving as bribe. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The panch witnesses and the Complainant were given a demonstration of trap proceedings. Thereafter, a trap party proceeded to Village Bagbooda. Ajay Awasthi (PW3) and Complainant Baburam (PW6) went to the house of the Appellant situated at Village Bagbooda. In his house, the Appellant was sitting in the outside courtyard. A conversation took place between Complainant Baburam (PW6) and the Appellant and thereafter Baburam (PW6) gave the bribe money to the Appellant to which the Appellant kept in the pocket of his kurta. Complainant Baburam (PW6) came out of the courtyard and gave a signal to the trap party on which the trap party went to the spot and caught the Appellant. The bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the kurta of the Appellant. Hands of the Appellant were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. The kurta of the Appellant and the recovered tainted money were also dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. On completion of other formalities, the trap party returned to the Lokayukta office. During investigation, sanction (Ex.P10) for prosecution of the Appellant was obtained from the Department of Law and Legislative Affairs, Bhopal. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The Trial Court framed charges.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. It was the defence of the Appellant before the Trial Court that he never demanded any bribe nor did he accept the money as bribe. Virtually, the demand of bribe was made by the Revenue Inspector and to save the Revenue Inspector a false and fabricated case has been prepared against him. At the time of trap, the Complainant had deliberately put the bribe money into the pocket of his kurta and soon thereafter the trap party entered there and caught him. It was the further defence of the Appellant that the sanction (Ex.P10) issued against him is not a valid sanction for prosecution. No witness has been examined by the Appellant in support of his defence.