SUBHASHCHANDRA JOSHI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.8.2001 passed by learned Special Judge Dewas in Special Case No.2/2000 convicting the appellant under sections 7, 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer one year R.I. and fine Rs.2,000.00, in default, further R.I. of four months, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IN brief the case of prosecution is that Vikramsingh (hereinafter referred to as the complainant) submitted a written complaint in the Lokayukta Office at Ujjain that appellant who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Head Constable in Police Station Pipalrawan District Dewas is making demand of bribe because a case has been registered in the said police station against the complainant and his three brothers namely Daulu, Mohan and Mansingh which is being investigated by appellant serving on the post of Head Constable. On 11.7.1999 appellant came in the village of the complainant and by informing about the case which has been registered against him and his brothers asked all the four accused persons including the complainant to come at police station and expenses of Rs.4,000.00 would come and directed them to bring this amount. On this, complainant requested that appellant is asking an exorbitant amount and after bargaining the amount of expenses it was settled for Rs. 1,500.00 and it was directed by the appellant to come with this amount so that complainant and his brothers may be released on bail. Further, it was also warned and threat was given by the appellant that in case Rs. 1,500.00 is not paid, the complainant and his brothers would be sent to jail.

(3.) ON receiving the said complaint, the Officers of the Lokayukta Office handed over a tape recorder to the complainant with a direction how to operate it and further gave direction that the conversation of bribe may be recorded in the cassette inserted in the tape recorder. Eventually, the complainant approached appellant and tape recorded the conversation which took place in between him and the appellant and it is said that in the said conversation because the demand of bribe was also made by the appellant it was recorded in the cassette.