ANIL BHASKAR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, has been preferred against the judgment dated 26.12.2018, passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Ujjain in Special Case No.16/2017, whereby the charges framed against the appellant under the provisions of Sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred as 'the P.C. Act') has been found to be proved and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI and in respect of the charges framed under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 4 years RI with fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. Both sentences would run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story in short was that on 19.5.2014, complainant namely Jitendra Kothar has lodged a complaint with Lokayukt police alleging that appellant working as was asked bribe of Rs.2000/- for releasing the funds to the mother of the complainant under National Family Benefit Scheme. On receiving such complaint, Inspector Special Police Lokayukt formed a team who would act as witnesses in respect of the demand of acceptance of bribe by the appellant. As per the instructions, the complaint pertaining to the demand of bribe was verified by the team and this was done by providing the complainant a voice recorder and he was again send to the office of the appellant along with one constable namely Ashish Chandel. The complainant went inside the office of the appellant alone and recorded the conversation. This voice recorder was then handed over to Basant Shrivastava, the I.O. A panchnama was prepared and crime No.0/34/2014 under Section 7 of the P.C. Act was registered. Thereafter FIR was also lodged. The complainant was asked to provide Rs.1500/-. The complainant provided two notes of Rs.500/- denomination each and 5 notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. A slip was prepared containing particulars of each currency note by panch witness Manoj Hinge. TLO Shri Basant Shrivastava then arranged for smearing phenolphthalein powder on these notes. These notes were kept in the right pocket of trouser worn by complainant. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution which did not turn pink. Subsequently, on 19.5.2014 by around 4.30 PM the team constituted by Lokayukt Police left for Jila Panchayat Damdama, Ujjain, On reaching the spot, the complainant went to the Social Justice Department and after sometime complainant alerted the team as per pre-determined signal showing that he has given the bribe. On receiving such signal raiding party constituted by the police went inside the office and trapped the appellant. His hands were held from above wrist by team members namely Ashish Chandel and Rakesh Bihari. His hands were dipped in sodium carbonate solution resulting in solution turning pink. This showed that he had received the money. Further search by Panch witness Manoj Kumar Hinge led to recovery of currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. These were pre-marked currency notes and thus, it was verified that bribe amount had been received. The trouser worn by the appellant was also seized and its right pocket was dipped in sodium carbonate solution which again turned pink. The appellant was charge-sheeted under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Charges under aforesaid sections were read over to the appellant who abjured his guilt. The trial court thereafter proceeded to examine the witnesses. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. The defence taken by the appellant was that he had no work relating to the appellant's mother pending with him and all the bills pertaining to Social Justice Department were already deposited by him on 26.3.2014, ie., much before the incident of bribe taking has shown to have taken place. The appellant examined one witness in his support. The trial court as already stated went on to convict and sentence the appellant in the manner described earlier.

(3.) In the appeal filed under Section 374 of Cr.P.C, it has been submitted that the finding arrived at by the trial court are not in-consonance with the evidence available on record, which is not cogent, clinching and reliable evidence. The complainant himself has admitted that two constables had caught the appellant at the gate outside of the office and searched him but no money has been recovered from his pocket and thereafter, he was taken back to the office and subsequently after 5 to 10 minutes, the constables came out and said that they have recovered the money from the appellant. Such evidence creates doubt on prosecution story. The constables have clearly failed to find out any money on the person of appellant and thereafter the appellant was taken inside the office and evidence was tampered with and money was shown to be seized from him. The complainant himself has stated that the constables have done a preliminary search of the appellant and had found nothing. In view of such averment, it was not possible to recover the money afterwards. Money which was recovered was of different denomination in the sense that the complainant states in his deposition that 3 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each were quoted with powder whereas the prosecution story is that there were 2 currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination each and 5 notes of Rs.100/- denomination were quoted. that hands of Trap laying officer were not worked. One of the witnesses Manoj Kumar Hinge has stated that no documents were seized from the appellant and witness has further substantiated that documents were taken out of a locker which was under the possession of one Smt. Vimla Kaushal and, therefore, no question of recovery of documents from the appellant arises. It was further stated that sample voice of the appellant and complainant were not taken and hence, the recording regarding bribe cannot be verified. It has also been stated that the amount due towards the National Family Relief Scheme had already been paid to the complainant on 28.3.2014 and, therefore, no question arises with respect to the demand of bribe on a later dated ie., on 19.5.2014. It is also stated that on the date of the alleged offence the appellant was not relieved from his posting from Janpad Panchayat Tarana and therefore, he could not have asked for the money to work he was not incharge of, on the date of commission of the offence. Thus, the material discrepancies in the statements of the witnesses were not taken into account and the learned lower court was wrong in drawing unwarranted inferences. Thus, the judgment pronounced by the trial court was erroneous on both facts and law and was based on surmises and conjunctures. Hence, it has been submitted that the appeal be allowed and the judgment pronounced on 26.12.2018 be set aside and appellant be acquitted from the alleged offence.