RAVI KUMAR RAI Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.5.2011 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dhamtari in Special Criminal Case No.1/07 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) and Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 188') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 4 years with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and RI for 2 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, with usual default clauses, respectively. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case, in brief, is this that son of complainant Tularam Gond had been granted lease for mining stones by Gram Panchayat Barari, regarding which he had filed an application for grant of mining license in the office of Mining Department, Dhamtari, where applicant was posted as Assistant Grade-III. It is alleged that appellant was stalling the approval of license and was demanding bribe of Rs. 3,000/- The complaint being disinclined to pay the bribe amount as demanded by the appellant, filed an application before the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt at Raipur on 30.5.2002, subsequent to which a trap was organized. In presence of complainant and the witnesses a demonstration of trap was given along with the instructions regarding the trap proceedings. The trap party reached the office of the appellant where the complainant handed over the bribe amount Rs. 2,000/- to the appellant and on receipt of signal by the complainant, the trap party rushed to the spot, disclosed their identity. The hands, pant of appellant and currency notes were recovered washed in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of solution turned pink because of the presence of phenolphthalein powder on it. Solution was preserved and sealed. Subsequent to that the documents relating to the application submitted by the son of complainant were seized from the office of the appellant. Seized solutions were sent for examination to the FSL from where report Ex.P-22 was received in which test for presence of phenolphthalein was found positive.

(3.) After completion of Investigation, the charge-sheet under Section 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w 13 (2) of the Act of 1988 was filed against the appellant before the concerned Court and accordingly the charges were framed against the appellant. The appellant abjured his guilt and sought trial. In order to prove its case the prosecution has examined 16 witnesses in all. Examination of appellant under Section 313 of CrPC has been recorded, in which he denied all the incriminating evidence available against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, he has admitted that he received the money from the complainant but that was towards the payment of royalty due on the complainant and not as bribe. Factum of royalty due has also been admitted by the complainant. He further submits that on making application for grant of license for mining stones, the complainant was ordered to deposit royalty of Rs. 2250/-, and the appellant had simply asked him to deposit the aforesaid amount but the complainant misinterpreted the same and thought that the appellant is demanding bribe from him. He further submits that even at the time of handing over the alleged bribe amount, the complainant had requested the appellant to accept the money towards royalty. He examined two witnesses in his defence.