PRABUDH GARG Vs. SPECIAL POLICE ESTABLISHMENT LOKAYUKTA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Petitioner has filed this criminal revision under Section 397 read with Section 401 of Cr.P.C. assailing the order dated 04.10.2019 passed by Special Judge (PC Act), Gwalior in Special Sessions Trial No. 07/2016, whereby the revisionist has been charged with Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

(2.) According to prosecution's case, relevant facts are that on 22.12.2014 complainant Rajendra Singh Jadon submitted an application in the office of respondent alleging that he had constructed three rooms in the MLB Girls College, Gwalior. He had an amount of Rs 6,80,000/- due for payment but the petitioner/accused, who is clerk in the D.O. Office is demanding bribe of Rs.7000/- to hand over the cheque. After being satisfied about the genuineness of the complaint investigating officer game him a digital voice recorder duly signed by him for the purpose of recording of conversation of accused with complainant. On 22.12.2014 the complainant went to the office of petitioner/ accused and entered into conversation with him. On return he handed over the voice recorder to the police. The seal packet of the voice recorder was opened in front of the witnesses and the voice was heard. The witnesses were able to hear in clear voice a demand of Rs.5000/- by the petitioner from complainant. The complainant identified the voice in voice recorder. After preparing the data from the computer, the same was put on record along with certificate under Section 65-B of Indian Evidence Act. The CD work prepared and kept in different envelope. Thereafter, on being satisfied that an offence under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act is made out, the FIR at Crime No. 1/2015 was registered against the petitioner.

(3.) After the investigation was over, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge (PC Act), Gwalior against the petitioner. The petitioner moved an application under Section 227 of CrPC and submitted that from the material collected during the investigation it is not established that the complainant had any work pending with the petitioner, therefore, there was no motive available for the petitioner to demand money for extending illegal favour. It is further contended by the complainant that the cheque with regard to payment was in possession of the petitioner and petitioner demanded Rs.7000/- for releasing the same. The said allegation is oral, without any support. The cheque was account payee of the account of Executive Engineer, P.W.D. Therefore, there was no occasion for the petitioner to raise any illegal demand. The transcript of the conversation recorded in voice recorded has no legal force.