LAWS(CHH)-2015-4-25

RAMDAYAL VERMA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

Decided On April 16, 2015
Ramdayal Verma Appellant
V/S
STATE OF M.P. Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 06/09/96 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in special case No. 01/88 whereby the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below - -

(2.) After completion of investigation and obtaining sanction of prosecution granted by State Government vide order dated 07/05/87 (Ex.P/7), charge sheet was filed. Charges were framed against the appellant on 15/02/89 by the Special Judge, Bilaspur for alleged commission of offence under Sec. 161 IPC and Sec. 5(1)(d) of the Act of 1947 stating that the appellant, in his capacity as Assistant Director, a public servant, demanded bribe of Rs. 500/ - in discharge of his official duty and thereby committed offence. The appellant abjured guilt and was put to trial.

(3.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined in all 14 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellant was examined under Sec. 313 CrPC in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him. The appellant, while denying commission of offence, came out with a defence that upon instructions from the higher authority, the appellant had conducted an enquiry on an allegation of misconduct against the complainant and on the report submitted by him, the complainant was given warning. Confidential remarks were communicated to the complainant by the appellant requiring him to give his explanation within a month but the complainant approached him on 04/06/86 for correction of ACR entries and when the appellant expressed his inability, the complainant went back and again came on 05/06/86 requesting that a vehicle may be provided to him to go to Amar Gas Agency and co -incidentally, the appellant also having some work with the gas agency, accompanied the complainant and went there to meet the owner of the gas company. He was not knowing, what was done by the complainant there. In support of his defence, the appellant examined one defence witness.