RAMESHWAR KURIL Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment dated 23.10.1997 passed by the Special Judge & 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 8/94 convicting the accused/appellant under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 1 year & fine of Rs. 1,000/- plus default stipulations, respectively. Facts of case, in brief, are that at the relevant time the accused/appellant was working as Junior Engineer in the then Madhya Pradesh State Electricity Board (MPEB) and posted fit village Basna. On 11.11.1991 complainant Abdul Gani (PW-4) submitted an application (Ex. P-5) for grant of electric connection at his newly constructed house, On 21.11.1991 the complainant had also deposited the requisite fee for grant of electricity connection. On 29.11.1991 the complainant contacted the accused/appellant and asked him for early grant of connection. The accused/appellant told him that if he wanted to get the connection at the earliest, he would have to pay Rs. 100/- to him (accused/appellant). The complainant being disinclined to pay the illegal gratification as demanded, replied that he will pay the said amount to him on receipt of his salary. When the complainant disclosed the aforesaid to his friend Surendra Singh alias Mannu (PW-14), he advised him to lodge the report with the Lokayukt. Thereafter, the complainant got prepared a written report (Ex. P-1) from said Surendra Singh (PW-14) and submitted it before the Lokayukt. On report being lodged, D.N. Singh (PW-18) constituted a trap party and preparation was made to complete the formalities. On demand being made by PW-18, the complainant produced one currency note of 100 denomination for laying the trap. Number of said currency note was recorded in the preliminary panchnama (Ex. P-2) and after applying chemical powder on the said currency note, it was given to the complainant with a instruction not to touch the same and he was further instructed to take out the same only when the demand was made by the accused. The complainant was also instructed to give signal by removing his hat. Panch witnesses S.S. Bariha (PW-2), G.S. Kanwar (PW-3), C.K. Tiwari (PW-5), M.C. Sharma (PW-6) & Nand Kumar Singh (PW-17) were summoned, they were informed about the contents of the complaint made by the complainant and demonstration of use and detection of power was given to all of them. After completion of the formalities, on 6.1.1991 they started for the office of accused/appellant in the government Jeep and on reaching there, the complainant went to the accused/appellant and asked him about his work. The accused then asked him about money. He took out the tainted money from the pocket of his Kurta and tendered it to the accused. The accused accepted the amount, wrapped it in the test report form and kept it in the left pocket of his shirt. After coming out from the chamber of accused/appellant, the complainant gave signal by removing his hat and thereafter the raiding party rushed to the chamber of accused, disclosed their identity and the panch witnesses to the accused and informed him that he has been trapped because of demand being made by him. On washing the hands of accused, the colour of solution turned pink. The solution was closed and sealed in separate bottle. Solution was sent for examination to the FSL from where, report of Ex. P-22 was received in which the test was found positive. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-13) was recorded on 6.12.1991. FIR (Ex. P-14) was registered against the accused/appellant under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988.

(2.) After completion of the investigation, the matter was submitted before the sanctioning authority and the sanction came to be accorded vide Ex. P-6. The investigating officer filed charge sheet against the accused/appellant for the offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) of the Act of 1988. The prosecution in order to bring home the charges levelled against the accused/appellant examined 18 witnesses. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. in which he denied the charges levelled against him and pleaded innocence & false implication in the offence. He has examined two defence witness in support of his case.

(3.) After hearing the parties, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described above.