RAMLAL Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SPECIAL Judge, Sagar in Special Case No. 1/88 recording conviction of appellant under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 sentenced him to undergo R.I. for a period of two years. Being aggrieved, appellant has preferred this appeal under section 374(2), Criminal Procedure Code.

(2.) ADMITTEDLY , at the relevant date -time appellant was a Head Constable posted at Police Station, Moti Nagar (Sagar). Murlidhar (P.W. 2) submitted application (Exhibit P -2) to the effect that to settle the case arising out of the report of one Chaina Kotwar, appellant was demanding a bribe of Rs. 300/ -. On the basis of this report Hari Prasad Choudhary (P.W. 14), Inspector Lokayukta constituted a trap party consisting of Yeshwant Kumar Saxena (P.W.3), Kedar Prasad Rawat (P.W.8). In presence of these witnesses, three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/ - were treated with phenolphthalein. Preparing preliminary Panchanama (Exhibit P -4) the currency notes were given to Murlidhar (P.W.2) for onward delivery to the appellant. Thereafter the trap party proceeded further, however, appellant was not found present at the Police Station, Moti Nagar. Being informed, appellant might be attending duty of some festival, the trap party had been to the place concerned. At that place also appellant was not found present. Finally, while the trap party was proceeding further with search of the appellant, he was found moving near the Chameli Chowk. Murlidhar (P.W.2) and the appellant had been to a hotel. As soon as Murlidhar (P.W.2) has come out from the hotel, police constables of the trap party Dwarka Prasad (P.W.5), Bhagole Prasad (P.W.6) in presence of Yashwant Kumar Saxena and Kedar Prasad Rawat apprehended the appellant. The currency notes of the denomination described in preliminary Panchnama (Exhibit P -4) were recovered from him. The hand wash of the appellant turned pink. As such Panchanama (Exhibit P -6) was prepared. Obtaining sanction for prosecution, the appellant was charge sheeted under section 161, Indian Penal Code, section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act. Appellant abjured the guilt and contended that he was not concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code arising out of report (Exhibit P -19) of Chain Singh nor he ever demanded any amount from Murlidhar (P.W.2). The court below accepted the contention that the appellant was not at all concerned with the investigation of Crime No. 265/86 under section 379, Indian Penal Code nor he demanded the amount towards the bribe. As such, vide impugned judgment, he was acquitted of the charge under section 161 Indian Penal Code. However, the court below held that the appellant accepted the amount aforesaid towards the bribe said to have been settled by Chandra Shekhar Shukla, Sub -Inspector (P.W.1l) to settle the case against Murlidhar (P.W.2). As such recording conviction under section 5(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, he has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for the period aforesaid.

(3.) P .W.2 Murlidhar has stated that in relation to investigation of crime said to have been registered on the report (Exhibit P -9) of Chain Singh, he was called by the Sub -Inspector Shukla. Sub Inspector Shukla demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/ - to settle the case against him. He agreed to give Rs. 200/ - to the Sub -Inspector Shukla, however, he was insisting for payment of Rs. 300/ -. As such, being annoyed of the attitude of Sub -Inspector Shukla, he presented the application Exhibit P -2. Three currency notes of the denomination Rs. 100/ - were treated with some powder and delivered to him for onward payment to Sub -Inspector Shukla. Members of the trap party associated with him. They had been to the Police Station, Moti Nagar, however, Sub -Inspector Shukla was not present. Thereafter, while returning, appellant Head Constable of the same Police Station was found near Chameli Chowk. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that with appellant he had been to the hotel where he asked the appellant to take the amount to be paid to Sub -Inspector Shukla, however, the appellant declined to do so, stating inter alia that he has nothing to do with the dealing between him and Sub -Inspector Shukla. P.W.2 Murlidhar has stated that he himself has insisted that the appellant should take the amount to be paid to Sub -Inspector Shukla. Saying so, he kept the currency notes in the hands of appellant. The appellant immediately kept those currency notes on the table. Thereafter, the members of the trap party arrived and collected the currency notes aforesaid. The hand wash of the appellant turned pink.