SHYAM MANI SHARMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 12/01/1998 passed by the Special Judge/First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 16/1995 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short the "Act") and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and one year respectively with a fine of Rs. 1,000.00 on each count, with default stipulation.

(2.) Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the accused/appellant was Branch Manager of the Land Development Bank, Mungeli. It is alleged that complainant-Jai Kumar Patle applied for loan of Rs. 10,000.00 and for sanction of the said amount, the appellant demanded Rs. 5,000.00 from him. However, the matter was settled that he will pay Rs. 300.00 to the appellant. Written complaint was made by complainant to the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta, Bilaspur alleging that the accused/appellant was demanding Rs. 300.00 from him. Trap party headed by S.K. Suryavanshi and B.P. Singh was constituted, test was demonstrated by applying phenolphthalein powder on the 3 currency notes of 100 denomination, said currency notes were given to the complainant and after instructions being given to him, the trap party went to the office (Bank) of the accused/appellant. It is alleged that complainant went to the accused/appellant and immediately thereafter, gave a signal to the trap party as a result of which the trap party raided the Land Development Bank and during search of the accused/appellant, the trap party collected the said amount vide Ex. P/13 and seizure memo was prepared vide Ex. P-16 and the trap panchnama (Ex. P/20) was prepared. Phenolphthalein test was conducted which proved positive by FSL report (Ex. P/20). FIR (Ex. -P/21) was registered and after obtaining sanction (Ex. -P/2) challan was filed under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) In support of his case, prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Statement of accused/appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in which he denied the allegations levelled against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Defence of the accused/appellant is that he has been falsely implicated and on the date of incident when he threw the amount, the trap party forced him to pick the currency notes scattered on the ground.