BRAHMADATT PATHAK Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant has preferred this appeal against the judgment and order dated 17-8-1998 passed by Special Judge, Bastar (Jagdalpur) in Special Case No. 02/1995 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 one year with fine of Rs. 500 u/s. 7 and rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 500 u/s. 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act, plus default stipulations. Facts of the case in brief are that at the relevant time the accused/appellant was working as Depot Manager, M.P.S.R.T.C. (for short the "Corporation"), Jagdalpur and the complainant namely Dilip Kumar Chitrasen was working as Driver in the said Corporation. On 3-3-1994 a written complaint Ex. P-1 was made by the complainant to the Vigilance Officer, Raipur alleging that the accused/appellant was demanding Rs. 5000 from him saying that it is he who got him appointed. When the complainant refused to give the said amount on account of his poor financial condition, the accused/appellant asked him to submit the medical certificate and affidavit failing which he would not be permitted to drive the vehicle in the line. Both the certificates were obtained by the complainant and submitted to the office of the accused/appellant but even then he was not assigned his work and the accused/appellant had threatened him saying that it is he who appointed him and that way he could remove him too if an amount of Rs. 5000 was not given to him. On 1-3-1994, when the complainant again met the accused/appellant and informed that he could not arrange the amount of Rs. 5000, the appellant asked him to arrange at least Rs. 2,500 by 3-3-1994 itself and rest of the amount could be paid later. Accused/appellant asked him to be present in the office on 3-3-1994 with the said amount. It is alleged that as the complainant did not want to give the said bribe amount to the accused/appellant and wanted an action against him, the complaint was made by him. After getting the aforesaid report, preliminary Panchnama was prepared on 3-3-1994 itself in presence of independent witnesses namely B.K. Sirothia (PW-2) and B.S. Baishya (PW-1). Trap party headed by Anand Diwan was constituted, test was demonstrated by applying phenolphthalein powder on the 22 currency notes of 100 denomination and 6 of 50 denomination, said currency notes were given to the complainant and after instructions being given to him, the trap party went to the house of the accused/appellant. Bribe amount was given to the accused/appellant by the complainant and after receiving signal from him it raided the spot and recovered the money from the seat of the scooter of the accused/appellant. The said amount was collected by B.S. Baishya (PW-1), and thereafter trap panchnama Ex. P-5 was prepared, phenolphthalein test was conducted which proved positive. FIR Ex. P-22 was registered and after obtaining sanction Ex. P-19 challan was filed on 20-9-1995 under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Act.

(2.) In support of its case, prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which he denied the allegations made against him and pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. Defence of the accused/appellant is that on the date of incident the complainant had made an attempt to give Rs. 2,500 to him which was refused by him but then the complainant tried to thrust the same in the left pocket of his shirt but he caught hold of his hand which led to scuffle coupled with exertion of force on account of which powder applied on the currency notes could have fallen on his shirt. He has also stated in his defence that scuffle coupled with exertion of force continued for quite some time and when the complainant ultimately failed to put the said amount in the pocket of his shirt, he put the same on his scooter parked nearby. According to him, he never demanded the money from the complainant nor did he ask Bhagirathi Dewangan (PW-5) to collect the same from the complainant. He has stated that if any such demand was made by Bhagirathi Dewangan (PW-5), it was bad. He has further stated that appointment order was already issued to the complainant five months prior to the date of incident and since then he was regularly performing hits duties and that he was never threatened by him for his removal from the job.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the Court below convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment.