DAWATRAM @ DILIP KUMAR BHARDWAJ Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 30.5.2016 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act'), Kabirdham in Special Sessions Trial No.1 of 2015, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in short, is that at the relevant time, the Appellant was posted as a Food Inspector at Block Bodla, District Kabirdham. Complainant Ashok Nirmalkar (PW2) was authorised for transporting food grains from Food and Civil Supplies Department, Kawardha by the authorised and registered transporter Rakesh Tamboli. It is alleged that e-panchnama was prepared by the Appellant to verify the transportation of food grains by the transporter along with bill. According to the further case of prosecution, bill of Rs.3,40,000 for the month of March, 2013 for transportation of food grains was not received by the transporter. Allegedly, the Appellant who was Food Inspector at Block Bodla demanded Rs.5,000 from the Complainant as illegal gratification in lieu of preparing e-panchnama. Since the Complainant did not want to give bribe, he made a written complaint (Ex.P2) before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur on 11.4.2013. For verification of the complaint, the Complainant was given a digital voice recorder and a panchnama thereof (Ex.P4) was prepared. On 16.4.2013, the Complainant informed Inspector/Investigating Officer S.K. Sen (PW12) that the Appellant had demanded bribe on 12.4.2013 and he had recorded the conversation took place in this regard. Second written complaint (Ex.P5) was submitted by the Complainant on 16.4.2013. A trap party was constituted and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P3) was recorded after hearing the conversation recorded in the digital voice recorder. A transcription (Ex.P6) of the conversation was prepared before the panch witnesses. For giving bribe, the Complainant had brought and produced 14 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500 each, total amounting to Rs.7,000. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The Complainant and the panch witnesses were described about the trap proceedings. The Complainant was again given a digital voice recorder and was advised to record the conversation. Thereafter, the trap party reached at Kawardha. The Complainant and shadow witness Santosh Kumar Sahu (PW7) were sent to the office of the Appellant at Kawardha. The Appellant was not found there. On being talked on phone, the Appellant called the Complainant to his house. The Complainant went to the house of the Appellant. After sometime, when shadow witness Santosh Kumar Sahu (PW7) gave a signal, the trap party entered the house of the Appellant. On being asked about the bribe money, the Appellant admitted taking the bribe money and keeping the same in the pocket of his shirt. The bribe money was recovered from the pocket of his shirt. Numbers of the recovered currency notes were compared with the numbers already noted. The numbers matched. The recovered currency notes, the shirt of the Appellant, the fingers of the Appellant as also the fingers of the Complainant were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. The conversation took place between the Complainant and the Appellant regarding the bribe was recorded in the digital voice recorder. A transcription thereof (Ex.P11) was prepared. After obtaining necessary sanction for prosecution of the Appellant and completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against him. Charges were framed against him by the Trial Court.

(3.) To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 12 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 that name of the Appellant is Dilip Kumar Bhardwaj. He was never known by names Dawatram or Daulatram. His office was not situated in Kawardha, but in the office of SDM at Bodla, which is 22 Kms. away from Kawardha. He does not know the Complainant. On 17.4.2013, i.e., the date of trap, he was sitting in his house. At that time, the Complainant came to his house and began to put money into his pocket deliberately and after deliberately putting the money into his pocket he got his hands released from his clutches and ran away from there. However, no witness has been examined by the Appellant in his defence.