STATE OF M.P. Vs. K.K. PANDEY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NON -petitioner K.K. Pandey retired Executive Engineer and Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri has been acquitted under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 12 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Shivpuri by passing judgment dated 1.7.2005 in Case No. 1 of 2004.

(2.) AS per prosecution, non-petitioner K.K. Pandey on 16., 17.1.2003 was Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri and he was a public servant. Village Sesai Khurd falls within Janpad Panchayat Kolaras. Mukesh Bai w/o Shri Bhanupratap Singh was Sarpanch of Village Sesai Khurd. On 16.1.2003 and before that, construction work was going on. Sarpanch of Village Sesai Khurd applied for construction of road to non-petitioner K.K. Pandey. Accused K.K. Pandey demanded Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) as illegal gratification from said Mukesh Bai through her husband. Consequently, Bhanupratap Singh filed an application Ex. P-1 before Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Gwalior. Thereafter, all formalities were completed and panchnama was prepared. Ten notes of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each in all Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) were treated with phenopthellein powder and they were given to Bhanupratap Singh to deliver accused. After delivering notes, he was directed to give signal to trap party. Trap party was constituted. Bhanupratap Singh went to the office of accused and handed over him ten notes of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each. He was caught red handed. Notes were seized from the spot. On washing accused's fingers by sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. After completing formalities and investigation, chargesheet under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 12 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been filed after taking due sanction for prosecution against accused. Charge under above said sections has been framed against accused K.K. Pandey. He abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated.

(3.) I have heard both the parties at length, perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.