RAMESH PAHUJA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 11/10/96 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No.48/96 whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence as described below -

(2.) Prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case is that one Vijay Shankar Awasthi, father of the complainant - Deepak Awasthi (PW4) suffered heart attack on 29/06/95 and was admitted in the hospital at Bhilai. Rs.1,500/- vide receipt (Ex.P/9) was immediately deposited by the complainant towards treatment on 26/06/95. It is said, complainant -Deepak Awasthi (PW4) was called by the appellant and instructed that he should deposit a further amount of Rs. 1,900/- towards medical expenses and should pay separately Rs.500/- for treatment. The appellant expressed inability to pay additional amount of Rs.500/-, he being a poor person and already huge expenses having been incurred, but the appellant insisted on giving Rs.500/- and the complainant was asked to bring the said amount on 29/09/95 in the morning at 10 AM. As the complainant did not want to give bribe, he complained the matter to the Vigilance Officer in the hospital, upon which, the vigilance officer informed him that CBI officers are staying in the retiring room of the railway station and he may contact them. Thereafter, the complainant met the Sub-Divisional Officer (Police) CBI-Shri N.K.Dubey and submitted written complaint (Ex.P/1). This complaint was handed over to Inspector Vinay Kumar (PW8). The complainant was then asked to come in the vigilance office and a report in Ex.P/22 was recorded. Two independent witnesses for the purposes of verifying complaint and laying trap were arranged by extending request to the Bank of India branch, Bhilai and National Insurance Company branch, Bhilai. On 29/06/95, the complaint and the two panch witnesses - Vinod Mehta (PW1) and A.K.Dutta (PW2) presented him in the vigilance office. The complaint (Ex.P/1) was given to the panch witnesses to verify. Thereafter, they read over the complaint from the complainant. The complainant was asked to produce five currency notes, each of Rs.100/-. Demonstration of reaction of Phenolphthalein with Sodium Carbonate solution was given to the prosecution witnesses and the complaint by Inspector - Vinay Kumar (PW8). The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the pocket of the complainant with instruction not to touch it till demanded by the appellant and then give a signal. A.K.Dutta (PW2), panch witness was also instructed to over hear conversation and watch transaction. The hands of the members of the trap team were washed and they were also searched. A pre-trap panchanama of the aforesaid proceedings was prepared in Ex.P/2.

(3.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined in all, eight witnesses. The appellant was also examined in respect of incriminating evidence and circumstances appearing against him in the evidence led by the prosecution. The appellant's defence was that no bribe was demanded by him and he has been falsely implicated because he had scolded and slapped the complainant - Deepak Awasthi for not following doctor's advice. Tainted currency notes were thrust into his pocket from behind. When he turned back, it was the complainant standing who shook hands and then the CBI officials caught hold of his hands. In support of his defence, the appellant examined two defence witnesses namely Dr. Indrajeet Kalia (DW1) and M.K.Bhatia (DW2).