SHESH MANI MISHRA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Sec. 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against judgment dtd. 30/6/1999 passed by Special Judge, Raipur, District- Raipur (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 49/91, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(CHH)3_2023_1.html</FRM>

(2.) The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 26/9/1986, the appellant, who was posted as an Assistant Security Inspector with the then Madhya Pradesh State Road Transport Corporation (MPSRTC) Korba and a public servant. The complainant- Bholaram was posted as Conductor and carrying the bus at Balco-Korba bus route. The bus was checked near Madwarani Temple by the appellant along with another inspector M.L. Sahu wherein 8 passengers were found without ticket. The report of the incident was sent to higher authorities and on the basis of the report, departmental enquiry was initiated against complainant-Bholaram. In the departmental enquiry, on 3/1/1987, statements of the accused and Inspector- M.L. Sahu were to be recorded at office of Enquiry Officer at Bilaspur. It has been further contended that the appellant demanded Rs.500.00 as bribe from Bholaram to change his evidence to save Bholaram. Bholaram was not inclined to give bribe, therefore, he lodged written report (Ex. P/1) to Special Police Establishment Bilaspur. On producing five notes of Rs.100.00 each, number of notes were noted and phenolphthalein powder was smeared over it and given the same to Bholaram. He was directed to give hint after giving bribe to the appellant. After that, members of trap team reached near office of MPSRTC Bilaspur depot. Bholaram sent to depot where the appellant was present. On demanding bribe by the appellant, notes of bribe were given to appellant by Bholaram thereafter Bholaram hinted trap team, the members of the trap team caught the appellant red handed and seized the powder smeared notes. The witnesses have seized the notes and the appellant had kept the notes in his pocket, which was also seized by the prosecution and blue shirt was also seized. After usual investigation and completing all the formalities including obtaining sanction from the higher authority to prosecute the appellant for commission of offence under Sec. 5(1)(D) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruptiion Act, charge-sheet was produced before the learned trial Court.

(3.) The appellant denied the allegation levelled against him and has stated that due to his evidence only, result of the departmental enquiry cannot be changed. He has taken his defence that before the incident, complainant-Bholaram had borrowed Rs.500.00 from him, which Bholaram had returned, therefore, he has not demanded the money, as such, ingredients of offence under Prevention of Corruption Act is not made out. It has also been stated that due to grudge with the appellant the then depot Manager- Mr. Sinha has pressurized complainant to falsely implicate the appellant.