SHANI RAM BHAGAT Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is against the Judgment/order, dated 04th August, 2003 passed by the Court of First Additional Sessions Judge-cum-Special Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No. 8 of 1998 whereby the appellant was convicted under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 2 years and R.I., for 5 years respectively. He was further directed to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- under section 7 of the PC Act, in absence of payment of fine, to further undergo additional R.I., for 3 months and also directed to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act and in absence of payment of fine, to further undergo additional R.I., for 6 months.

(2.) The prosecution story in brief is that in the year 1997, the appellant accused was posted as Industrial Inspector at District Industries Center, Raipur. Certain loans were being granted under the Prime Minister's Employment Scheme wherein the complainant Ram Swaroop Verma was one of the applicants and his application was to be routed through the said office wherein appellant was In-charge. The accused appellant was looking after the work of processing and forwarding different loan applications and since process of sanction of loan of complainant for purchase of Auto Rickshaw was not being forwarded, the victim met the accused several times in the office. However, on some pretext or the other, the loan application was not forwarded to be approved. Eventually a demand of Rs. 7500/- was made by the appellant on 11.11.1997. Since the complainant was not willing to offer the bribe, a written complaint was made by him on 11.11.1997 to the Special Police Establishment of Lok Ayukta (ACB). Having received the complaint, a Panchnama was prepared and a micro tape-recorder was given to the complainant to record the conversation. Thereafter, the complainant again met the appellant in the Collectorate premises and recorded conversation in between them wherein the demand for undue gratification was made. Consequently on the basis of written complaint filed by the victim, a trap team was formed by the Special Establishment and two of the independent witnesses namely Hulsa Ram and Vinod Kumar were summoned.

(3.) The complainant was asked to give currency notes and all the numbers of currency notes were noted down and a preliminary Panchnama was prepared. Subsequently phenolphthalein powder was applied over the currency notes and it was given to the complainant. He was further directed to give amount on demand to the accused and thereafter to give signal. The procedure of phenolphthalein and sodium carbonate was explained to the effect that it changes colour when the sodium carbonate solution comes in contact. The tape-recorder was also given for recording the conversation and the applicant was asked to deliver the chemically treated currency notes on demand and was sent for the purpose, thereafter the trap team followed the complainant to the spot. It is alleged that the trap team waited and after some time, the accused reached in front of a Bank at colloctorate premises and the appellant asked the complainant to arrange the envelope and one envelope was procured by the complainant and the currency notes were placed inside the envelope. Subsequently the notes were given to the appellant by the complainant Ramswaroop Verma which was kept by the appellant in his pocket of full pant. After the amount was given to the appellant, the trap team rushed to the spot and trapped him. His hands were washed in solution of sodium carbonate and the serial numbers of currency notes were tallied with numbers mentioned in preliminary Panchnama which was found to be the same which was prepared at the time of the report. The clothes of the accused i.e., full pant were also washed in chemically treated water i.e., solution of sodium carbonate and when the articles and hands came in contact with such solution it changed its colour. Thereafter, necessary seizures were made. Subsequently after recording the statements of witnesses, the charge sheet was filed against the applicant.