VAIBHAV CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dtd. 3/9/2011 passed by Special Judge (CBI), Jabalpur in Special Case No.3/2008, whereby the appellant has been found guilty for the offence punishable under Ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short "the Act") and convicted and sentenced R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.5,000.00 and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs.5,000.00, respectively, with default stipulations.

(2.) As per the prosecution, complainant H.N.Raja (PW.7) was temporarily appointed on 25/3/2004 (Ex.P/15) as a substitute bungalow peon attached to Shri V.P. Raheja (PW.10), the then Controller of Store, West Central Railway, Jabalpur for a period of three years. He was eligible for screening for regular absorption as Group-D employee in the Railways on successful completion of three years period. In the meanwhile, Shri Raheja was transferred to Central Railway. As he was not willing to take the complainant to Mumbai, he asked that complainant be adjusted in WCR under the rules.

(3.) A complaint to that effect was lodged on 8/6/2007 to Shri R.K.Sinha (PW.11), Inspector (CBI), Jabalpur. A case was registered against the appellant under Sec. 7 of the Act, independent witnesses S.C.Saxena (PW.8) and Ajay Sancha (PW.9) were called to oversee the transaction and trap was immediately arranged on the same day. It is alleged that the appellant was caught red handed by the officers of CBI at his residential premises in the presence of independent witness Satish Chandra Saxena (PW.8), Deputy Manager, State Bank of Indore, Jabalpur. The bribe amount of Rs.50,000.00 wrapped in newspaper was recovered from the table drawer at the instance of the appellant upon his disclosure before the independent witness Satish Chandra Saxena (PW.8). Thereafter, appellant's fingers were dipped in the chemical compound prepared for this purpose, which turned pink. Confessional statement of the appellant was also recorded. After completion of the formalities, the prosecution was lodged against the appellant on obtaining necessary sanction.