RAJKUMAR DAMLE, Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9. 5. 2017 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act'), Durg in Special Case No. 2 of 2006, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the relevant date and time, the Appellant was posted as an Assistant Surgeon in District Hospital, Durg. Acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was also posted there as an O. T. Attendant. Complainant Amar Singh (PW7), a resident of Bhilai, had brought Baisakhinbai to the District Hospital, Durg on 17. 1. 2005 for her treatment. The Appellant, after examination of Baisakhinbai, called her again on 7. 2. 2005 and demanded a sum of Rs. 600/- from Complainant Amar Singh (PW7) for the purpose of operation of Baisakhinbai. On 7. 2. 2005, between 9:00 to 9:30 a. m. , the Appellant performed surgery of abscess of Baisakhinbai. At that time, on being demanded by the Appellant, Amar Singh gave him a sum of Rs. 200/-. The Appellant again called Amar Singh along with Baisakhinbai for her examination and for payment of the remaining amount. Amar Singh did not want to give him money and, therefore, he went to the office of Anti Corruption Bureau, Raipur and made a written complaint (Ex. P20) on 9. 2. 2005. Inspector Anil Pathak (PW10) prepared a trap plan. On 10. 2. 2005, in the morning, Complainant Amar Singh was called at the Rest House, Durg situated in front of the District Hospital, Durg. Panch Witnesses R. H. Pandey (PW4) and S. C. Khuntiya (PW5) were called by him and all of them went to the Rest House, Durg. At the Rest House, Complainant Amar Singh was introduced with the aforesaid panch witnesses and the panch witnesses were given complaint of Complainant Amar Singh for verification. Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P33) was recorded and on its basis, numbered First Information Report (Ex. P34) was registered. Complainant Amar Singh brought 4 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs. 100/-. Their numbers were noted in Preliminary Panchnama (Ex. P10). Constable Agamram Verma smeared phenolphthalein powder on those 4 currency notes submitted by Complainant Amar Singh and put those smeared currency notes in the pocket of the shirt worn by Complainant Amar Singh and he was also given a demonstration of trap proceeding. Constable Pawan Pathak prepared different solutions of sodium carbonate. Complainant Amar Singh was also given a tape recorder with a new cassette and battery. He was also demonstrated how to start the tape recorder and record conversation. Thereafter, on 10. 2. 2005 itself, at 9:45 a. m. , Complainant Amar Singh was sent to the District Hospital, Durg with the bribe money. Members of the trap party hid nearby. Complainant Amar Singh entered the hospital and after return he gave a signal that he had given the bribe money to the Appellant. On this, the trap party entered the hospital and caught the Appellant. According to the prosecution, the Appellant was given the tainted bribe money of Rs. 400/- out of which the Appellant had kept Rs. 300/- with him in his apron and gave the remaining amount of Rs. 100/- to acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey, the O. T. Attendant. Vinod Kumar Pandey had kept that tainted note of Rs. 100/- in the pocket of his shirt. Panch Witness S. C. Khuntiya (PW5) made a search of the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey and took out 3 tainted currency notes each of Rs. 100/- from the apron of the Appellant and 1 tainted currency note of Rs. 100/- from the pocket of the shirt of acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey. The numbers of the recovered 4 tainted currency notes were compared with the numbers already recorded in the Preliminary Panchnama (Ex. P10). The numbers matched. Hands of the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey were washed in different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned into pink. The recovered tainted currency notes, the apron of the Appellant and shirt of acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned into pink. Vide Ex. P11, the 3 tainted currency notes of Rs. 100/- and the apron of the Appellant were seized. Vide Ex. P12, the 1 currency note of Rs. 100/- and the shirt of acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey were seized. O. T. Register was also seized from acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey vide Ex. P14. O. P. D. Register (Ex. P2) was also seized vide Ex. P1. Vide Ex. P15, O. P. D. Slip of Baisakhinbai was seized from Complainant Amar Singh (PW7). Service Books and posting orders of the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey were also collected. All the used solutions of sodium carbonate were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. The FSL Report is positive. Necessary sanction for prosecution (Ex. P21) of the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey was obtained from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey. Charges were framed against them.

(3.) In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statements of the Appellant and acquitted accused Vinod Kumar Pandey were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied the guilt. No witness has been examined in their defence.