DINESH KUMAR KANNOJE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 31-10-1998 passed by Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 1/1993. By the impugned judgment, accused /appellant Dinesh Kumar Kannoje has been convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'the Act, 1947') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months, respectively. Both the jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) To establish the charges against the accused/appellant, the prosecution, in relation to the demand and receipt of the illegal gratification, mainly examined Dr. Abdul Rasid (PW-1), Krishna Lal Gwal (PW-2), John Verghese (PW-3), R.A. Sharma (PW-4), Shivcharan (PW-5), Nemichand Hirwani (PW-6), Chaitram (PW-7), B.I.R. Naidu (PW-8), Ishwarlal (PW-9), Naresh Kumar (PW-10), Jeevan Bhalekar (PW-11) and D.R. Yadav (PW-12). In defence, the appellant examined Mohanlal (DW-1) and Loknath Sahu (DW-2).

(3.) Shri Sourabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence. Dr. Abdul Rasid (PW-1) and R.A. Sharma (PW-4) specifically deposed that they had not heard the appellant demanding money of his own from the complainant. Looking to the evidence of Nemichand Hirwani (PW-6) and Naresh Kumar (PW-10), it appears that complainant Chaitram (PW-7) was trying to give money to the appellant forcefully and the appellant was refusing to accept the same. Demand of illegal gratification, which is sine qua non for convicting the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act, 1947 is not proved. A presumption cannot be drawn against the appellant. He further argued that it is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish all the ingredients of Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act, 1947 before convicting the appellant. The prosecution did not prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not sustainable and the appellant deserves to be acquitted. He placed reliance on Bal Krishan Sayal v. State of Punjab, 1987 AIR(SC) 689Subash Parbat Sonvane v. State of Gujarat, 2003 AIR(SC) 2169Aran Kumar Pandey v. State of M.P., 2011 CrLJ 4631, Darshan Lal v. The Delhi Administration., 1974 AIR(SC) 218and Dudh Nath Pandey v. State of U.P., 1981 AIR(SC) 911