VINOD KUMAR KHARE Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 7.8.1998 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge (C.B.I.) [under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988')], Jabalpur in Special Case No.36 of 1990 convicting and sentencing the Appellant as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the relevant date and time, the Appellant/accused was posted as a Manager in Bhilai Refractories Plant, where bricks were being prepared for which quartzite minerals were being requisitioned and before giving tenders, samples were being called and after approval of the samples, tenders were being accepted. In June, 1989, Complainant Shambhu Lal Purohit (PW2) had sent some samples for approval which the Appellant had examined and given report (Ex.P5) in which the samples were not found fit for approval. Thereafter, on 20.7.1990, the Complainant again submitted some samples to the Purchase Department and when he did not get any information about the result of his samples, it is alleged that he contacted the Appellant on 24.7.1990 regarding this. The Appellant called him at his house. On 27.7.1990, he visited the house of the Appellant. At that time, the Appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 5,000/- for passing the samples. On this, the Complainant contacted the Central Bureau Investigation (C.B.I.) on 1.8.1990 and submitted a written complaint (Ex.P7). Panch witnesses J. Pandey (PW4) and P.S. Nair (PW6) were called. They met with the Complainant and verified the complaint from him. The Complainant submitted 50 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, i.e., total Rs. 5,000/-. Investigating Officer Inspector Ashok Kumar Saha (PW7) smeared phenolphthalein powder on those currency notes and gave a demonstration of reaction of the phenolphthalein powder. The tainted currency notes were kept in the right pocket of the shirt of the Complainant. A pre-trap memorandum (Ex.P8) was prepared. The trap party proceeded towards the house of the Appellant. Along with them, Inspector S.K. Sharma (shadow witness) (not examined) also went. Allegedly, the Complainant and Inspector Sharma, who was in civil dress, entered the house of the Appellant. Panch witnesses J. Pandey (PW4) and P.S. Nair (PW6) stood outside the door of the house of the Appellant. On being demanded by the Appellant, the Complainant gave him the tainted currency notes which the Appellant kept in the pocket of his full pant. The Complainant and Inspector Sharma came out of the house along with the Appellant. The Complainant gave a signal to the trap party and the Appellant was caught there itself. The tainted money was recovered from the pocket of the Appellant. Numbers of those notes were compared with the numbers already noted. The numbers matched. Hands of the Appellant were washed in different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of both the solutions turned into pink. Pocket of the pant of the Appellant was also washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. A panchnama of the complete proceedings was prepared vide Ex.P9. The seized articles and the used solutions were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. FSL report is Ex.P1 The report is positive. First Information Report (Ex.P11) was registered. Necessary sanction for prosecution (Ex.P10) of the Appellant was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Act of 1988. Charges were framed against him under Section 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) and Section 7 of the Act of 1988.

(3.) In order to prove the guilt of the accused/Appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 7 witnesses. Statement of the Appellant under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was also recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him. He claimed to be innocent and pleaded false implication in the case. It was the defence of the Appellant that Jagdalpur Minerals had taken a lease which was about to expire, but despite that, a sample on behalf of Jagdalpur Minerals was submitted and the Complainant wanted him to pass the sample. He (the Appellant) did not agree for this and, therefore, in order to teach him a lesson, a false complaint was lodged by the Complainant. He never demanded or accepted any money as bribe.