BHIMENDRA KUMAR VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 30.8.2019 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the PC Act') and 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.313 of 2016, 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 Sub Engineer in Zone No.5 of Raipur Municipal Corporation. Complainant Devendra Kumar Choudhary (PW1) was having a plot measuring 1650 Sq.Ft. by the side of the road in Changorabhatha, Raipur. For widening of the road, some portion of his plot was acquired. In the remaining part of the plot measuring 1211 Sq.Ft., for commercial construction of 455 Sq.Ft. at the ground floor and for construction of commercial office and residence total in 500 Sq.Ft. at the first floor, he had obtained due permission from the Municipal Corporation, but, he had not started the construction. Thereafter, changing the previous plan of constructions, he submitted a new application for construction of a parking in the ground floor and for construction of commercial building in remaining floors. For the said purposes, when he met with the Appellant, he demanded bribe of Rs.5,000. Since the Complainant did not want to give the bribe, on 13.7.2009, he submitted a written complaint (Ex.P1) to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur. For confirmation, he was given a micro cassette tape recorder along with a cassette for recording of the conversation. On 15.7.2009, he again met with the Appellant and recorded their conversation in the said tape recorder. On 17.7.2009, he went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau and submitted the tape recorder along with the recorded cassette and also submitted his second written complaint (Ex.P2). Thereafter, panch witnesses were called. They were introduced with the Complainant. They verified the complaint made by the Complainant. The recorded cassette was heard and a transcription (Ex.P4) of the conversation was prepared. The Complainant submitted 10 currency notes in the denomination of Rs.500, total Rs.5,000 for giving to the Appellant as bribe. Their numbers were noted and a panchnama thereof was prepared. A trap proceeding was demonstrated to the Complainant and the panch witnesses. The Complainant was again given a micro cassette tape recorder along with a cassette for recording conversation to be taken between the Complainant and the Appellant at the time of giving bribe. Thereafter, the trap party went to the office of the Appellant. The Complainant alone went inside the office of the Appellant. After some time, he came out of the office and gave a signal to the trap party. The trap party went inside the office of the Appellant where his hands were caught and on being asked he told that the tainted money was kept in the drawer of the table. Numbers of the tainted currency notes were compared with the numbers already recorded in the preliminary panchnama. The numbers matched. Hands of the Appellant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which their colour turned into pink. On completion of the investigation and after obtaining sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. 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. No witness has been examined by the Appellant in his defence.