SHATRUGAN LAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dtd. 17/12/1998 passed by Special Judge, CBI, Jabalpur in Special Criminal Case No. 31/1997 whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as mentioned below:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_22_LAWS(CHH)7_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) Facts of the case in brief, are that at the relevant time the appellant was working as SDO Phones at Bilaspur. Complainant Uday Kumar Sinha (PW-1) working as Development Officer in LIC had given telephone connection from the department as the instrument was provided him was not properly working so he contacted the appellant for change of instrument. It is alleged that appellant demanded Rs.200.00 as bribe for change of instrument, as the complainant did not want to give him bribe, so he made a written complaint (Ex.P-1) to CBI Inspector and on the basis of written complaint, Vinay Kumar lodged the unnumbered FIR (Ex. P-10) in SECL guest house before the independent witnesses Anil Kumar (PW-1) and K.K. Mishra (PW-6). Both the witnesses enquired about the complaint with the complainant. Complainant has submitted tainted notes before the member of trap team and reaction of sodium carbonate was demonstrated to the complainant thereafter memorandum (Ex.P-2) was prepared. After completing all the formalities, the trap team proceeded to telephone exchange office for trap. Complainant with Anil Kumar (PW-1) entered in the chamber of appellant and on demand the complainant had given Rs.200.00 to the appellant then the appellant passed an order (Ex.P-3) to Ram Bharose (PW-2) for change of instrument. Subsequently, Ram Bharose brought the instrument with him and handed over the same to the complainant. After coming out from the office, the complainant gave a signal to member of trap team/CBI, who entered in the chamber of the appellant and cought hold the accused and prepared solution of sodium carbonate in which the left hand of the appellant was washed which turned into pink and solution was kept in the sealed bottle and marked Article C. Other hands of the appellant were washed with the solution which also turned into pink and the solution was sealed in bottle and marked Article B. The prosecution has washed the right hand of the Ram Bharose (PW-2) with sodium carbonate solution which also turned into pink and kept in sealed bottle and marked Article D. Hands of complainant Uday Sinha were washed with the solution which was kept in sealed bottle and marked as Article E. Shirt of Ram Bharose (PW-2) was washed with solution which also turned pink and marked as Article G on it, thereafter memorandum (Ex.P-4) was prepared and signatures of the witnesses were obtained. Stock issue register was also seized. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of all the proceedings the matter was submitted before Superintendent of Police, CBI Jabalpur. S.R. Jaiswal, Superintendent of Police, CBI registered the numbered FIR (Ex.P-12) vide R.C. No. 31A/94 on 29/9/1994. All the bottles were sent to FSL, Delhi for examination and a receipt thereof was received vide Ex.P-13. After completion of investigation, charges under Ss. U/s. 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were levelled against the appellant and sanction for prosecution under (Ex.P-14) was received against the appellant thereafter charge sheet was filed before the Special Court.

(3.) In order to bring home the guilt of appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 6 witnesses Anil Kumar (PW-1), Ram Bharose Yadav (PW-2), complainant Uday Kumar Sinha (PW-3), Vinay Kumar (PW-4), K. Nagrajan (PW-5), K. K. Mishra (PW-6). To substantiate the charges leveled against the appellant, the prosecution has exhibited the documents written complaint (Ex.P-1), memorandum (Ex.P-2), application dtd. 28/9/94 (Ex.P-3), Covering memo (Ex.P-4), Seizure Memo (Ex.P/5 to Ex.P/6), Stock register (Ex.P-7), list (Ex.P-8), examination of Ram Bharose (Ex.P-9), FIR (Ex.P-10), Supurdnama dtd. 28/9/94 (Ex.P-11), FIR (Ex.P-12), FSL Reort (Ex.P-13), Sanction for proseuction (Ex.P-14), list (Ex.P-15A), sheet for prosecution (Ex.P-15). The prosecution has exhibited Articles A-2 to A-2 I,J, and K. In question No. 13, this witness has replied and has reiterated the same stand in his defence and also exhibited statement of Ram Bharose (Ex.D-1), application dtd. 1/10/1994, postal receipt Ex.P-2, telegram Ex.P-3 and receipt Ex.D-1 to Ex.D-4.