LAXMIKANT Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374 of the Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.1998 passed by Special Judge, Satna in Special Sessions Case No. 2/94 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/ - and R.I. for 1 year with fine of Rs.1,000/ - respectively with default stipulations.

(2.) THE facts, in short, giving rise to this appeal are that complainant Umashankar Dwivedi (PW -8) met with the appellant, who was posted as Patwari at Patwari Halka Tyodhara, Tahsil Amarpatan, District Satna, for the purpose of mutation of his land bearing Khasra No. 9/2 Rakba 0.283 in his favour, for which the appellant demanded a sum of Rs.300/ - from the complainant as illegal gratification. The complainant gave a sum of Rs.50/ - to the appellant and agreed to give remaining sum of Rs.250/ - at Tehsil Office, Amarpatan. Not being inclined to give the bribe to the appellant, the complainant made a written complaint to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment (Lokayukta) Rewa who, in turn, directed Inspector R.R.Mishra (PW -11) to arrange a trap. Inspector R.R.Mishra (PW -11) initially gave the complaint for verification to independent witness R.P. Shukla (PW -2), who verified the facts of the complaint, thereafter the complainant gave a sum of Rs.250/ -, which were smeared with Phenolphthalein powder, thereafter preliminary Panchnama (Ex.P -6) was prepared and the trap party proceeded towards Tehsil Office, Amarpatan along with the Panch witnesses. The complainant handed over the money to the appellant, which was kept by him in the front pocket of his shirt, thereafter, after receiving the signal, the trap party caught hold the appellant. During the aforesaid process, Jivan Lal Shukla, Revenue Inspector made hue and cry and threatened the trap party, then other companion Patwaris like Dharmraj Singh, Banshilal Khare, Babu Nagesh Shrivastava started scuffling with the trap party in order to facilitate the appellant to run away from the spot. While running away from the spot, the appellant left his official bag/record on the spot. This fact has been verified by R.R. Mishra (PW -11), Tehsildar Amarpatan, that the said record was given on Supurdginama to him and the report was lodged against the persons who obstructed the trap party in discharging of their duties and offence under Sections 147, 153, 186, 294, 506 of the IPC was registered against them and offences under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act were registered against the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant abjured the guilt and pleaded false implication. He took the defence that the appellant was not authorized to pass the order of mutation and he did not make any demand. He further took the defence that he was not present on the spot at the time of incident, at that time he was at Teonthara. In his defence the appellant has examined Ramayan Prasad Pandey (DW -1) and Shivram Prasad (DW -2).