OMPRAKASH PRADHAN Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 9/6/2000 passed by the Special Judge (constituted under Prevention of Corruption Act)/ 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No.04/1999 convicting the accused/appellant under Ss. 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Sec. (13) (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the P.C. Act') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for six months with fine of Rs.500.00 and R.I. for one year with fine of Rs.1000.00 respectively, plus default stipulation.

(2.) In the present case, the Accused/Appellant is Patwari and Complainant is Pratap Singh Tanwar (PW/2) in whose favour Bhuneshwar Prasad Singh, elder father of the Complainant, had executed a will in respect of 4.74 acres of land owned and occupied by him at village Sonpuri. After 4-6 months of execution of will, said Bhuneshwar Prasad Sing left for heavenly abode. Thereafter, an application was moved by Complainant Pratap Singh Tanwar (PW/2) in the office of Tahsildar, Koraba, to get the said land recorded in his name and for preparation of land right and Rin Pustika. At the relevant time, the Accused/Appellant, being the Patwari of the concerned jurisdiction, was directed by the Tahsildar on 29/5/1998 to prepare and give land right and Rin Pustika by 3/6/1998 but the same was not be given to the Complainant (PW/2). Again on 15/6/1998, the Accused/Appellant was directed by the Tahsildar to do the needful in this regard. Thereafter, the Complainant (PW/2) along with one Gunjlal (PW/13) approached the Accused/Appellant, who demanded illegal gratification of Rs.9,000.00 for preparing land right and Rin Pustika, however, the matter could be settled for Rs.3,000.00. Since, the Complainant (PW/2) did not want to give bribe amount, a complaint (Ex.P/4) was got prepared by one Gunjlal (PW/13) on 16/6/1998 and the same was submitted in the office of Lokayukt, Bilaspur. On the basis of complaint (Ex.P/4), Crime No. 67/98 was registered at Lokayukt Office, Bhopal, and a trap party was constituted by summoning Panch witnesses. The Complainant (PW/2) produced 30 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100.00, total Rs.3,000.00 for the trap proceeding. Their numbers were noted and they were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Initial Proceeding Panchanama (Ex.P/8) was got prepared in the Lokayukt office. Under the same proceedings, the Complainant (PW/2) was explained about the conduct to be followed at the time of the trap movement and the signal to be given to the trap team after the bribe about was given to the Accused/Appellant. On 16/6/1998, the trap party proceeded for Korba from Bilaspur. During trap proceeding, the Complainant (PW/2) along with his companion Guinjlal (PW/13) gave the tainted amount to the Accused/Appellant at his residence at about 10.00 pm. thereafter, on the signal of Complainant, the trap party came there and recovered the tainted amount from the pocket of the Accused/Appellant. The hands of the Accused/Appellant, seized money and hands of Panch witness Dr. R.M. Tripathi (PW/4) were dipped into a solution of sodium carbonate on which the colour of the solution turned into pink, which was seized separately vide Ex.P/9. The tainted amount was seized vide Ex.P/10.

(3.) On completion of other formalities and investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Accused/Appellant. After filing of the charge sheet, the trial Court has framed charges under Sec. s 7, 13(1) (d) read with Sec. (13) (2) of the P.C. Act. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge levelled against the Accused/Appellant examined as many as 19 witnesses in all. Statement of Accused/Appellant was recorded under Sec. 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. It was the defence of the Accused/Appellant that Complainant - Pratap Singh Tanwar (PW/2) had borrowed Rs.3,000.00 from him for operation of his mother which was returned on the date of incident. The Accused/Appellant had not demanded any bribe. The complainant (PW/2) had some dispute with Shankar Prasad Sharma (PW/9), Advocate, and due to the negligence of Shankar Prasad Sharma (PW/9) the complainant could not get rin pustika. Therefore, owing to dispute with Shankar Prasad Sharma, Advocate, the complainant with the collusion of Lokayukt Office falsely implicated him in the case.