H.K. VAIDHYA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26 -4 -2002 passed by the First Additional Sessions -cum -Special Judge, Durg, in Special Case No. 6 of 1998 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (1) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short, "the Act") and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/ -, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further RI for three months on each count. Both the sentences are ordered to run concurrently. Briefly stated facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 14 -8 -1997 the appellant was serving on the post of Karyapalan Adhikari, Antyavsayi Sahakari Vikas Samiti Maryadit, Durg, District Durg (Chhattisgarh). The accused/ appellant made a demand of Rs. 500/ - from Shyamkali (PW/7) to refund the amount of Rs. 16,250/ - to which she had deposited two years back in the account No. 382 of the said society as part amount towards financing her mini bus under Raftar Scheme. Since Shyamkali (PW/7) was not desirous to give the said amount of bribe and was keen to get the appellant caught red -handed, she submitted a complaint (Ex. P/18) through K.C. Sonwani who was not examined by the prosecution, in the office of Lokayukt, Special Police Establishment, Raipur, on 13 -8 -1997. The written complaint was entrusted to Dy. Superintendent of Police (for short, DSP) N.S. Kanwar (PW/12) by Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Raipur for taking necessary action under the law. The D.S.P.N.S. Kanwar summoned two panch witnesses namely B.R. Mandavi (PW/3) and S.S. Pandey, (PW/5) and put some queries to complainant Shri K.C. Sonwani in their presence and for verification of the complaint gave him a micro -tape recorder with blank cassette for recording the conversation of demand of bribe vide Ex. P/19. K.C. Sonwani brought the tape -recorder after recording the conversation of bribe with the appellant which was not clear, therefore, he was again asked to record the conversation with the appellant at the other side of the same cassette. After recording the conversation K.C. Sonwani produced the tape recorder in presence of the aforesaid panch witnesses which was heard and reduced in writing (Ex. P/4). Thereafter, the tape recorder and cassette were seized vide Ex. P/5. The complainant Shri K.C. Sonwani again submitted a written complaint (Ex. P/2) before the Superintendent, Lokayukt, Raipur, Camp at Durg which was read over by the Panch witnesses and on the basis of said application, the DSP N.S. Kanwar registered Dehati Nalsi (Ex. P/3) under Section 7 of the Act. The conversation recorded in the cassette was deleted and given to the complainant for recording the conversation with the appellant at the time of giving him bribe. The panchnama of which is Ex. P/3 -A. On being satisfied that the complaint is prima facie correct, the complainant was directed to produce currency notes of Rs. 500/ -, numbers thereof were noted down and the same were treated with phenolphthalein powder by Tilak Ram Gagre (PW/1). A pre -trap demonstration of the change of colour of solution of sodium carbonate on coming into contact with phenolphthalein powder, was conducted in the camp. A pre -trap Panchnama (Ex. P/6) was also prepared.

(2.) THE treated currency notes were kept in the left pocket of the shirt of complainant who was directed to hand over the same to the appellant only when he makes demand of bribe. Thereafter, the trap party including the complainant went to the office of the appellant at Durg. The complainant was sent inside the office of the appellant and the members of the trap party were waiting outside for signal of the complainant. Thereafter, on being asked by the appellant whether he had brought the money, the complainant took out the treated currency notes of Rs. 500/ - and handed over the same to the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant came out from the office and gave signal to the members of the trap party as a result of which they rushed inside the office of the appellant and caught hold of his hands from the wrist.

(3.) AFTER the investigation was over and requisite sanction (Ex. P/16 -C) was obtained to launch the prosecution against the appellant, a charge -sheet was submitted before the learned Special Judge who framed charges punishable under Sections 7 and 13 (1)(d) (1) read with Section 13(2) of the Act against the appellant to which he denied and requested for trial.