BHIMSEN DEWANGAN Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.06.2016, passed by the Special Court (constituted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.), in Special Anti-Corruption Case No. 06/2014, convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 07 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 01 year and fine of Rs.5000/- and for under Section 13(1)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for 03 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulations.

(2.) The case of prosecution in brief is this that complainant- Kubal Singh Bhusakhare (P.W.-2) filed a written complaint (Ex.-P/15) in A.C.B., Jagdalpur on 10.02.2013 alleging that appellant is making a demand of bribe of Rs. 10,000/- for giving technical approval to the work done by the complainant under the contract given to him by Gram Panchayat, Godari. The complainant was then provided with digital voice recorder and instructed to bring a recording of conversation with the appellant regarding the demand. The complainant then brought back the digital voice recorder with the recorded conversation in it and again insisted that he wants action against the appellant. A Panchnama (Ex.P/16) was prepared by D.S.P.- M.L.Negi (P.W.-11) regarding the receipt of digital voice recorder. On 11.02.2013, the complainant again presented an application for taking action against the appellant. The transcript of the conversation in digital voice recorder was prepared vide Ex.P/17 and two CDs were also prepared for the same and seizure of these articles was made vide Ex.P/18. The witnesses were summoned and a team was constituted for conducting the raid. On 12.02.2013 at 07:00 a.m., in the morning, all the members of the team gathered in the office of A.C.B., Jagdalpur, where the complainant also appeared. The complaint made by the complainant- Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) was verified by the Panch Witnesses, then complainant- Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) produced currency notes of Rs.10,000/- intended to be given in bribe. The serial numbers of the currency notes were noted down in preliminary Panchanama. Demonstration of trap procedure was given in presence of witnesses and all the team members, which has been recorded in the preliminary Panchanama. The team and the witnesses proceeded to the spot, where the appellant was to be found on the same day. The team and witnesses waited outside while the complainant- Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) approached the office of appellant. The complainant Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) after coming inside the office made a call from his mobile phone and informed that the appellant has received Rs.10,000/- bribe and has kept the same in the right pocket of his full pant and has also signed the cheque for payment. The members of the raiding party then approached the appellant, where he was found siting in his chamber. The team members introduced themselves, thereafter the fingers of both the hands of appellant were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the solution turned into pink colour. The solution was preserved and sealed. On asking, the appellant informed that he has kept th currency notes of Rs.10,000/- in the right pocket of his full pant. The Panch witness- Tulsi Ram Thakur then took out the bribe money from the appellant along with his purse from the right pocket of his full pant. The numbers of notes recovered from the appellant were verified from the serial numbers noted down in the preliminary Panchnama were found to be the same. The currency notes so recovered were also washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the colour of the solution turned into pink which was again preserved and sealed. The hands of panch witness Tulsi Ram were also washed in another similar solution and the colour of the solution changed into pink, which was preserved and sealed. At the same time the fingers of both of the hands of complainant Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) were also washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the colour changed into pink and the solution was preserved and sealed. The right pocket of the full pant of the appellant and his purse both were washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the colour changed to the pink which was also preserved and sealed. The seizure of all the sealed bottles of solutions, the currency notes, the purse of the appellant, the full pant of the appellant and one mobile handset was made vide Ex.P/3 and Ex.P/4. At the same time, the files regarding construction of boundary wall regarding which the complainant had received the contract, were seized from the complainant vide Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/6. The conversation recorded by the appellant in the digital voice recorder at the time of giving and taking bribe was heard by the panch witnesses and a transcript vide Ex.P-9 was prepared for the same. A panchnama of complete procedure vide Ex.P/16 was prepared. The seized bottles of solutions were sent for examination to F.S.L. Raipur vide Ex.P/33. The F.I.R. (Ex.P/28) was lodged, accordingly the case was investigated. The F.S.L. report (Ex.P/31) confirmed that the tainted solutions in the bottles, the washings of the hands of the appellant, the complainant & the panch witness and the articles had content of phenolphthalein. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court concerned.

(3.) The trial Court charged the appellant for the offence under Section 07 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. The prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses on its behalf and closed the prosecution case. On examining the appellant under Section 313, he denied all the incriminating evidence against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. It has been stated in defence that the appellant had given loan of Rs.10,000/- to the complainant- Kubal Singh (P.W.-2) as he had the necessity for making purchase of cement and for making payment to the labourers, which was returned on the date of incident. No witness was examined in defence. On completion of trial, judgment has been delivered, in which the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as aforementioned.