STATE OF MP Vs. RAFIQUE KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh through its Special Police Establishment, Lok Ayukta Office, Indore, to assail the judgment delivered by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Dhar, in Special Case No. 03/2000 acquitting the respondent of the charges under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 delivered on.....The appeal was filed with an application for grant of leave to file such an appeal, which was granted.

(2.) ACCORDING to the appellant, the judgment of the Special Judge is not sustainable in law that the Special Judge has committed an error by disbelieving Kailashchandra Bairagi (P.W. 2) the complainant who very specifically deposed about the demand of Rs.8,000/- (later reduced to Rs.6,000/-) by the accused from him for the purpose of mutating the land belonging to him and his other brothers over and above the legal dues. It is submitted that this had corroborated the complaint made by the complainant vide Exh. P-1 and the Panchnama (Exh. P-2) regarding the amount paid by him to the Special Police Establishment Branch which money was also recovered from the respondent after the trap. It is also the case of the appellant, that the Trial Judge also committed an error in disbelieving the statement of Radheshyam (P.W. 5) and Arun Kumar Laharia (P.W. 6), who also corroborated acceptance of the illegal gratification by the respondent. It is submitted, that the very fact, that the hand of the respondent/accused turned pink, when dipped in the sodium carbonate solution was also not considered by the Judge erroneously. It is, thus, submitted that in the present case, there was ample evidence available on record for the purpose of convicting the respondent/accused. It is also submitted, that the reasons given by the Lower Court in returning the finding of acquittal by holding that there were doubts in the story of the prosecution, and that, the case was wrongly foisted against the respondent/accused on account of enmity, is also not correct. It is thus prayed that the appeal be accepted and respondent be convicted of the charges framed against him.

(3.) BRIEFLY stating, the case of the prosecution is, that after a family partition of his property by Laxmandas, father of the complainant in the year 1980, the property was to be mutated in the name of all the shareholders and a Rin Pustika was to be issued. For that, separate applications were filed before the Naib Tehsildar. The partition document was also placed before the Naib Tehsildar on 16-6-1999. The Naib Tehsildar asked the Patwari to prepare a nomination filed on 23-6-1999. On 24-6-1999, the respondent/accused measured the land and asked the complainant to pay a sum of Rs.6,000/- for the purpose of issuing Rin Pustika and mutation of the property as illegal gratification. On 25-6-1999, the complainant approached Special Police Establishment Office of the Vigilance Department in Indore and informed them about the illegal demand by filing a complaint which is Exh. P-1. A tape- record was given by Shri Mohan Singh of the Special Police Establishment to the complainant, so that he can record the discussions had with the complainant regarding the demand of illegal gratification, which was done by the complainant on 29-6-1999 at the house of accused in presence of Radheshyam (P.W. 5) his associate. On 30-6-1999 a trap party was formed and at that time, a sum of Rs.6,000/-, which was brought by the complainant, i.e., 11 notes of Rs.500/- and 5 five notes of Rs.100/-, were taken into possession. They were treated with Phenolphthalein powder and were returned to Kailashchandra Bairagi with instructions to hand over the same to the accused when demanded. Trap was laid on the same day at about 11.00 a.m. at the house of the respondent/accused. The complainant paid a sum of Rs.6,000/- to the accused as illegal gratification, which the accused kept in his pocket. On the signal of the complainant, the trap party came near the accused. The notes were recovered from the pocket of the accused and on treating of his hand with sodium carbonate solution it turned pink. On that basis, other investigations were also carried out. FIR was registered and after completing investigation case was filed against the respondent which came up for disposal before the Special Judge. Charges were framed though denied by the accused. Before filing the challan sanction was also obtained.