NOHAR SINGH SAHU Vs. STATE OF C G

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against judgment dated 1-3-2004 passed by Special Judge and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 4/2003. By the impugned judgment accused/appellant Nohar Singh Sahu has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) /13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act 1988') and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and to pay fine of Rs. 1,000/- and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 4 years and to pay fine of Rs. 2,000/- respectively. In default of payment of fine imposed for both the offences, the accused has been sentenced to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 3 months for each count. The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is as under:--

(2.) Shri Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the 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 even if a presumption is drawn as per Section 20 of the Act, 1988, the accused established his case that he did not accept any illegal gratification. Complainant Rewaram Sahu (PW-3) has not supported the case of prosecution and has been declared hostile. The appellant has established that he has been falsely implicated in the case and the tainted money recovered from him was towards the payment of land revenue. He further submitted that the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges framed against him.

(3.) On the contrary, Smt. Madhunisha Singh, 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. Fingers of both the hands of the accused were got dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate, colour of which had turned pink. Pocket of the pant of the accused was also dipped in another solution of sodium carbonate, colour of which had also turned pink. Acceptance of the amount is not disputed by the appellant, therefore, presumption under Section 20 of the Act, 1988 is made out against the appellant. Hence, the impugned judgment does not call for any interference.