SURESH CHAND TRIPATHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dtd. 18/12/1997 passed by the II Additional Sessions judge, Raipur in Special Sessions Trial No.10/1986 convicting the accused/appellant under Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short 'the Act of 1988') and sentencing him to undergo RI for 3 years & fine of Rs.5000.00 on each count respectively with default stipulation.

(2.) During pendency of this appeal, accused/appellant Suresh Chand Tripathi died and thereafter his legal heirs filed an application for prosecuting this appeal, which was allowed by this Court vide order dtd. 11/7/2019. Hence this appeal is being prosecuted by the legal heirs of the deceased appellant Suresh Chand Tripathi.

(3.) The facts of case, in brief, are that on 6/11/1985 a written complaint (Ex.P/1) was made by Aniruddha Singh Thakur, Secretary of Raipur District Clerk Cooperative Society to Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Raipur to the effect that accused/appellant Suresh Chand Tripathi, Superintendent in Raipur Sub-Registrar Cooperative Society, has been demanding Rs.200.00 per month for issuance of permit in favour of the complainant for supply of food-grains through Public Distribution System and now he is demanding Rs.400.00 for two months for the said purpose which the complainant is not willing to give him. On this, the Superintendent of Police handed over the said matter for necessary action to K.R.Sharma, Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Raipur who constituted trap team and the witnesses of the trap team namely LP Tamboli and Rs. Sharma were introduced to the complainant. Thereafter, preliminary panchanama Ex.P/2 was prepared, the sodium carbonate solution was made and its effect was demonstrated. After obtaining four currency notes each of 100 rupees denomination from the complainant, phenolphthalein powder was applied thereon and the same were kept in his pocket with clear instructions not to touch these notes prior to giving the same to the accused and that after giving notes to the accused, he should give signal to the trap team.