ANARDEVI TIWARI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Present appeal is preferred against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 30/9/1999 passed by the learned Special Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Special Case No. 5/1992 whereby, the trial court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_28_LAWS(CHH)8_2022_1.html</FRM>

(2.) As per case of the prosecution, the appellant was posted as Head-master of the Government Higher Secondary School, village Kharoha Shivrinarayan, District Bilaspur (C.G.). While working as a public servant on the post of Principal of Government School, on 23/8/1988, during discharge of the official duty as a public servant, appellant demanded amount of Rs.500.00 other than the valid remuneration for giving mark-sheet to complainant- Chandrashekhar (P.W.-1) and received a bribe of Rs.500.00. It is also alleged that while serving as a public servant, the amount other than the lawful remuneration Rs.500.00 was illegally received from complainant-Chandrashekhar (P.W.-1) in the form of bribe by misusing his official position. Complainant approached Lokayukta and submitted a complaint (Ex.P-1) to arrange a trap for the appellant. Rs.50.00 was taken from the complainant and treated with phenolphthalein powder and handed over to the complainant with necessary directions. Preliminary panchnama (Ex.P/2) was prepared. Complainant gave currency of Rs.50.00 to the appellant who kept the same in his table. On the appointed sign being given by the complainant Chandrashekhar (P.W.-1), the members of the trap team reached there, the hands of the accused/appellant were dipped in the solution of Sodium Bi-Carbonate, the solution turned pink and Rs.50.00 was recovered from the possession of the appellant. Spot-map (Ex.P/10) was drawn. Packets containing phenolphthalein solutions turned pink, they were sent to FSL. FIR (Ex.P/16) was registered and charge-sheet was filed against him before Special Judge and charges were framed under Ss. 161 of IPC and Sec. 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(3.) So as to hold the accused/appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 12 witnesses. Appellant has examined 3 witnesses in his defence and statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the case.