GAYA PRASAD TELGAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against judgment dated 10 1 1997 passed by 1st Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act, 1988'), Bilaspur in Special Case No. 3/92. By the impugned judgment, accused/appellant Gaya Prasad Telgam has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run the sentences concurrently: <IMG>JUDGEMENT_3831_CRLJ_2013.jpg</IMG>

(2.) CASE of the prosecution, in brief, is as under : On 14 12 1989, accused/appellant Gaya Prasad Telgam was posted as a Patwari of Halka No. 23, Village Tifra District Bilaspur. On that date, complainant Santosh Kumar Tiwari (PW 6) made a written complaint (Ex. P 1) to Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Bilaspur that his father J. N. Tiwari had purchased an agricultural land measuring 0.13 acre in his own name, whose papers including stamp papers were given by complainant Santosh Kumar Tiwari (PW 6) to the concerned Halka Patwari, i.e., the appellant for mutation. At that time, the appellant demanded Rs. 225/ for mutation of the land in the name of his father J. N. Tiwari. Complainant Santosh Kumar Tiwari (PW 6) gave him a sum of Rs. 50/ on 30 11 1989.

(3.) SHRI B. M. K. Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove demand of illegal gratification by reliable and cogent evidence. The Panch Witnesses did not hear the appellant demanding money of his own from the complainant. It is necessary for the prosecution to satisfy and establish that all the ingredients of Sections 7 and 13(l)(d) of 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. Evidence of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions. Evidence of complainant Santosh Kumar Tiwari (PW 6) is not reliable and conviction cannot be based on his testimony. Hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana (2010) 4 SCC 450 : (AIR 2010 SC 1589).