INDER KUMAR SAHU Vs. AWADH RAM DHRUV

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This revision is filed under Section 397/ 401 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 01.09.2004 passed by Special Judge of Prevention of Corruption Act, Raipur in Special Case No. 5/2001; whereby the respondents are acquitted by the Court below of the charges under Sections Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) Facts of the case, in short, are that accused/respondent No.1 Awadh Ram Dhruv was posted as Principal in Govt Higher Secondary School, Bhendri, respondent No.2 Ajay Kumar Yadav was posted as Assistant Grade-II and complainant Indraman Kumar Sahu was also posted as Assistant Teacher in the same school. It is stated that the complainant had applied for withdrawal of part final payment from his GPF account and the papers of which was pending before the respondents. The complainant met the respondents several times in the office. However, on some pretext or the other, the amount was not sanctioned to him. Eventually a demand of Rs. 1500/- was made by the respondents. Since the complainant was not willing to offer the bribe, a written complaint was made by him on 15.05.2000 to the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta at Raipur. For verification of the said complaint, the police provided a tape recorder to the complainant for recording the conversation in respect of demand of illegal gratification. The complainant for recording the conversation in tape he called the respondent No. 2 and settled the matter in Rs. 1100/- and first gave Rs. 500/- to respondent No.2 and for the remaining amount of Rs. 600/- he sought time. On 19.05.2000 he called the respondent No. 2 and sent the message about the same to SDOP Lokayukta. On 19.05.2000 panch witnesses were arranged and a trap team was constituted. 6 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. The trap team proceeded for the spot, by standing some steps back at treasure office at Dhamtari, it was asked the complainant to go and hand over the money to the respondents and while doing this he was also asked to give signal to the trap party. When the complainant gave signal by scratching his head, the trap party went to respondent No.1 Awadhram, caught them red handed while accepting the money from the complainant, got his hands washed in the sodium carbonate solution colour of which turned pink and the respondent No.2 was present along with respondent No.1. They were arrested under Ex.P-29 and thereafter, FIR (Ex.P-27) was recorded and currency notes were seized from the respondents under Ex.P-21. Necessary sanction for prosecution of the respondents was obtained vide Ex.P-26 from the competent authority. On completion of the investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondents for offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act followed by framing of charge accordingly.

(3.) Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the prosecution has not proved the factum of demand and acceptance of bribe against the appellant. As per the court statement of the complainant, earlier the respondents had demanded Rs. 1500/- but later on, they made a demand of Rs. 1100/-. What was the actual demand is not proved by the prosecution. She submits that in this case the evidence of the prosecution has proved the fact beyond all reasonable doubts and the learned Special Judge on the basis of minor contradictions/omissions discarded the whole evidence and recorded acquittal in favour of the accused/ respondent No. 1 and 2 which is against the principles of law and is liable to be set aside.