RAMESH KUMAR GUPTA Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE sole appellant at the relevant time was employed as a Sub -Inspector of Police and was functioning as Officer -in -charge at Pulgaon Police Station at Drug. He was tried for offences punishable under sections 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('Act' for short) and also under section 161 I.P.C. for obtaining illegal gratification of Rs. 500/ - from one Anandram, P.W. 1. The trial Court acquitted him of the charge under sections 5 (1)(d) read with 5 (2) of the Act but convicted him under section 161 I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 1,000/ - and in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. The appeal filed by the accused was dismissed by the High Court. Hence, the present appeal.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that P.W. 1, the complainant went to the Pulgaon Police Station on 12.11.1979 alongwith one Tejram, the Vilalge Kotwar to lodge a report about disappearance of his wife. P.W. 1 narrated his complaint to the appellant who blamed him for beating his wife, who because of that beating must have run away. So saying he took P.W. 1 into custody and detained him in the Police Station. He, however, requested the appellant through the Kotwar to release him but the appellant demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 1,000/ - but later on agreed to accept Rs. 500/ -. The complainant agreed to pay Rs. 500/ - and was allowed to go on a promise that he would pay the amount. P. W. 1 borrowed the amount from his brother Johan, P.W. 3 and Amirdas, P.W. 4 for making the payment as promised. P.W. 1 was, however, not willing to pay the amount and therefore complained to Collector, Durg through Mohanlal and Kalyansingh. The Collector informed the Police Inspector, Raipur to take necessary action against the appellant. P.W. 1 met the D.S.P., P.W. 9 in the presence of Shri K.L. Agarwal, P.W. 8, the Deputy Collector and one D.P. Gupta. In their presence, P.W. 1 gave a written complaint. Phenolepatheline Powder test was conducted in respect of five currency notes of Rs. 100/ - denomination. A panchnama was prepared noting the numbers and the result of the test, etc. After that the five currency notes were given to P.W. 1 instructing him to go to the house of the accused and hand him over all the notes on his demand and after that to give a signal. P.W. 1 accordingly left for the house of the appellant. A raiding party consisting of P.Ws. 8 and 9 and Shri D.P. Gupta, S.K. Upadhyaya, Inspector and a constable proceeded in a jeep alongwith Annadram. They stopped the jeep at a distance and Anandram got down and proceeded on foot to the house of the accused. P.W. 1 knocked the door of the house of the accused and he was called in. The accused asked him if he had brought the amount and P. W. 1 took out the packet containing five currency notes and tried to hand over the same to the accused. The accused, however, asked him to keep the money between the tape (niwar) and mattress of the cot on which he was sitting. Accordingly P.W. 1 kept the notes and gave a singal. Immediately the members of the trap party entered and disclosed their identity to the accused. They searched his person but not finding anything on his person they searched the room and recovered the five notes which were kept between the tape and mattress of the cot. A seizure memo was prepared and the hands of the accused were washed with solution of Sodium Carbonate and the same was collected in a bottle and sealed. The hands of P.W.1 also were washed in that solution which was kept in a separate bottle and sealed. The same test was conducted in respect of the five currency notes. The necessary panchanama of search and seizure was made and after completion of the investigation and after obtaining the necessary sanction, the charge -sheet was laid.

(3.) IN this appeal, Shri S.K. Gambhir, learned counsel for the appellant, contended that the tainted money was not recovered from the person of the accused and P.W. 1 did not say in his evidence that he informed the raiding party that he kept the money under the mattress at the instance of the accused and therefore seizure of the money by the raiding party is suspicious and there is every likelihood of the tainted money being planted under the mattress when the accused was not actually on the spot. His further submission is that there is no corroboration to the evidence of P.W. 1 regarding the demand and acceptance and since P.W. 1 is in the nature of an accomplice, his evidence cannot be acted upon to convict the accused without independent corroboration on material particulars.