LAWS(CHH)-2013-6-22

YUGAL KISHORE Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On June 19, 2013
YUGAL KISHORE Appellant
V/S
State Of M.P. (Now State Of Chhattisgarh) Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 30-06-1997 passed by Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), Rajnandgaon in Special Case No. 5/94. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Yugal Kishore has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act/1988 and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and to pay fine of Rs. 200/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and to pay fine of Rs. 300/-, respectively. In default of payment of fine, to further undergo imprisonment for 2 months and 3 months, respectively. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:

(2.) Shri Neeraj Mehta, learned counsel for the accused/appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence. It is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish that all the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988 have been made out before convicting the accused. Therefore, the prosecution did not succeed in proving the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) of the Act, 1988. He further submitted that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant from the complainant. He further submitted that in the complaint (Ex.-P/6), it is stated that the demand was made by Bharat. Complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) stated that the appellant never demanded any bribe. The Panch witnesses have only stated that on being asked by T.P. Kujur (PW-3), the amount was given by the complainant to the appellant. Even if a presumption is drawn as per Section 20 of the Act, 1988, the appellant established his case that he did not accept any illegal gratification. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. Evidence of complainant Chhannulal (PW-4) is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law.

(3.) On the contrary, Shri Anand Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent supporting the impugned judgment, submitted that the prosecution has adduced cogent and reliable evidence against the accused. Bribe money was recovered from the accused. Therefore, the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 would be attracted and it has to be inferred that the amount was accepted as illegal gratification. Shri Verma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State further argued that the circumstances in which the money was received by the appellant clearly amounts to acceptance and, therefore, that, by itself, permits the Court to draw an inference that it was an acceptance pursuant to demand of bribe made by the appellant.