JAGAT RAM SAHU Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 25.2.2002 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act'), Bastar at Jagdalpur in Special Case No.1 of 1999, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Prosecution case, in short, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as an Accountant in the office of Block Education Officer, Antagarh. Co-accused (acquitted) Fagnuram Bhagat was posted as a Higher Division Clerk (H.D.C.) in the office of Block Development Officer, Antagarh. Chainuram Komra, who was father of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2) died on 18.1.1998. Chainuram Komra was an Assistant Teacher. His D.R. Gratuity amounting to Rs.64,685 was receivable by the Complainant after giving no objection certificate (N.O.C.) by the Block Education Officer, Antagarh. On 11.6.1998, the Complainant met with Block Education Officer Mr. Bhaskar. He directed the Complainant to meet with the Appellant. On 19.6.1998, the Complainant met with the Appellant. At that time, along with the Appellant, co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat was also present there. Both the accused persons demanded bribe of Rs.8,000 for issuance of the no objection certificate. Since the Complainant did not want to give bribe, he submitted a written complaint (Ex.P10) in the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the Complainant was given a tape recorder with a blank cassette for recording of conversation of bribe for confirmation of the complaint. On 26.6.1998, the Complainant went to the Appellant. There, both the Appellant and the co-accused demanded bribe from the Complainant. The Complainant recorded the conversation of bribe in the tape recorder. Thereafter, he returned with the tape recorder and the recorded cassette to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There, the tape recorder and the cassette were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). A transcription (Ex.P12) of the conversation of bribe recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. On 30.6.1998, the Complainant filed a complaint (Ex.P1). Panch Witnesses T.K. Dongre (PW1), a Commercial Tax Officer and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4), an Assistant Project Administrator were called. They read the complaint and verified its contents from the Complainant. Thereafter, the Complainant produced 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.500 and 10 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100, total Rs.1,500 for giving as bribe which was demanded by the accused persons. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. A trap proceeding was demonstrated to the Complainant and the panch witnesses. A trap party was constituted and they proceeded towards Antagarh. When it was found that both the accused persons were not present at Antagarh, the trap party went to Narayanpur and stayed there in the Rest House. On 2.7.1998, the trap party came to know that the accused persons had returned Antagarh. The trap party went to Antagarh. The Complainant was again given a tape recorder with a blank cassette and he was sent to the office of Block Education Officer, Antagarh for recording of conversation of bribe. The Complainant went to the office of Block Education Officer and met with the Appellant there. He recorded the conversation took place between him and the Appellant regarding bribe in the tape recorder. On being demanded bribe of Rs.1,500 by the Appellant, the Complainant gave him the tainted money. The Appellant accepted the bribe money and kept the same in the left pocket of his pant. Thereafter, on being given a signal by the Complainant, the trap party entered the office of Block Education Officer and caught the Appellant. The Appellant took out the bribe money and produced the same before the trap party. Hands of the Appellant, his pant and the recovered currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. The tape recorder and the cassette were recovered and seized from the Complainant. A transcription (Ex.P6) of the conversation recorded in the tape recorder was prepared. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons. The Trial Court framed charges under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act against the Appellant and under Sections 7 and 9 of the PC Act against co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness has been examined by the accused persons in their defence.