BABULAL BIJORIA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant feeling aggrieved by the judgment dated 7.3.2002 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Special Case No. 03/2000 whereby he has been convicted under sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs.1,000/ -; on both counts with default clause of three months and six months rigorous imprisonment on each count respectively, has filed this appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case may be stated, as under: - At the relevant point of time, the appellant was working on the post of Assistant Estate Officer in MP Housing Board at Ujjain. Complainant Santosh Pandit (PW 1) was allotted a plot by the MP Housing Board. The complainant had deposited the entire price money of the plot allotted to him on 12.2.1999. After depositing the entire price amount, the registration of the plot was to be made by the Housing Board in his favour. However, in spite of repeated efforts being made by him by contacting and requesting the appellant, he did not process the file. Ultimately again on 1.7.1999, when the complainant met with the appellant for the purposes of registration of the sale -deed in his favour, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 1,500/ - from him for processing the file for registration of the plot in his favour. The complainant was not willing to pay the bribe amount. He, therefore, made a complaint on 12.7.1999 Ex.P/1 to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Ujjain. In order to verify correctness of the complaint, Arun Kumar Samadhiya (PW -8) Inspector of Lokayukta handed over a tape recorder to the complainant to record the conversation between him and the appellant about demand of bribe. Nirpatlal (P -6) was sent with the complainant. The complainant recorded the conversation of the demand of bribe on the tape recorder. On the very same day, on the basis of the complaint Ex. P/1, the First Information Report Ex. P/34 was recorded and was sent for registration at Bhopal, which was registered as Ex. P/35. On 13.7.1999, letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police to depute Gazetted Officer for being included in the trap party in the capacity of panch witnesses. A.S. Sisodiya (PW 2) Deputy Director, Horticulture, Ujjain and J.N. Suryawanshi, Assistant Director, Agriculture, Ujjain were deputed as panch witnesses. They were introduced to the complainant and in the presence of them and the complainant, tape recorded version of the conversation between the appellant and the complainant was transcripted as Ex.P/3.

(3.) DURING the trial, the appellant abjured his guilt and took the defence that since the complainant did not raise the construction within the specified time, penalty for delay to the extent of Rs. 1,500/ - was imposed upon him, as recorded in the note -sheet dated 5.7.1999. The said amount of penalty was received from the complainant by his clerk Anil Mishra, and when it was handed over to him, the trap party reached and prepared a false case.