SUDEEP Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.

(2.) This criminal appeal has been filed under Sec. 374 of Cr.P.C. against the judgement dtd. 21/7/2016, passed in ST No.5/2014 by Special Judge Ratlam (MP); whereby, finding the appellant guilty, the learned Judge of the trial Court has convicted the appellant for offence under Ss. 7 and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred to as 'Act of 1988') and sentenced him under Sec. 7 of Act of 1988 for one year R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000.00, under Sec. 13(2) of Act of 1988 for 1 year R.I. with fine of Rs.10,000.00 with default clause to undergo 3 months additional R.I. (2 counts).

(3.) In brief case of the prosecution is that against the appellant Sudeep Sharma, who was posted as Patwari Halka no.35 was given the charge of Patwari Halka No.32-A village Hartali, a complaint (Ex-P-9) was filed in the office of Special Police Establishment Lokayukta, District Ujjain, by the complainant Bagdiram (PW-2) on 18/12/2013, in which it was stated that he is a resident of Gram Mathuri wherein he and his brothers have an ancestral land, whereas Patwari Sudeep Sharma has informed him that it is a revenue land in which certain pattas have to be distributed, and if he wants that his land should not be declared as revenue land, then he has to give him Rs.5000.00 and since he (complainant-Bagdiram) did not want to pay bribe to the appellant, and wanted to trap him red-handed, the complaint is being filed. On such complaint, the complainant-Bagdiram was given a digital voice recorder, vide Panchanama (Ex.P-10), and he was apprised that he has to take the voice recorder to appellant Sudeep Sharma, Patwari and record the conversation between them regarding demand of bribe. Along with the complainant, constable Rakesh Bihari (PW-5) was also sent, and according to the case of prosecution, on 18/12/2013, the complainant Bagdiram again appeared in the office at around 7.00 p.m., and again submitted another application (Ex-P-12) to submit the voice recorder wherein he stated that he has recorded the conversation with the appellant secretly. The voice recorder was kept secured and Panchnama (Ex/ P-11) was prepared and the matter was informed to the Superintendent of Police, who summoned two gazetted officers from Collectorate Office, Ujjain and thus, on 19/12/2013 when the complainant again appeared in the office of the Lokayukt he was apprised of all the procedural formalities and was introduced to the witnesses, at that time Inspector Basant Shrivastava (PW-6) took out the digital voice recorder in which conversation between the complainant and the appellant on 18/12/2013 was recorded, and the complainant Bagdiram identified his own voice as also the voice of the appellant and with the help of the complainant and on the dictation of Basant Shrivastava, Assistant Grade II Ashok Khatri typed the conversation vide (Ex-P-13) and Inspector Basant Shrivastava (PW-6) also gave a certificate Ex-P-22 under Sec. 65(B) of the Evidence Act 1872 as the three CDs which were prepared in presence of the witnesses which were also played before them were kept in three different envelopes. Subsequently, the complainant was also asked to produce the currency notes which were to be given to the appellant, and thus the complainant, produced 10 notes of Rs.500.00 denomination and after completing all the procedural formalities, a trap team was formed vide Trap Panchnama (Ex-P-14).