RAJESH KUMAR TRIVEDI Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT has preferred this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 7 -4 -2005 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge and Special Judge, Gwalior (MP) in Special Case No. 4/2002, whereby the appellant/ accused being a Public Servant has been found guilty under sections 7 read with 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act" in brevity) and sentenced to one year RI with a fine of Rs. 2500/ - on each count and in default of payment of fine, further ordered to suffer imprisonment for one month and both the sentences are also ordered to run concurrently. It is an admitted fact that at the relevant time, the appellant/accused was posted as Regional Transport Officer at Morena as a Public Servant.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated facts of the case are that on 26 -5 -2001 and on 27 -5 -2001 the appellant/accused was posted as Regional Transport Officer at Morena. Complainant Harishankar Singh was the private bus operator and he was plying a bus from Gwalior to Morena and Gwalior to Gohad on permanent permit. The registration no. of the concerning bus is MP 06 B -6552. It was also the case of the prosecution that one Jahur Khan had also obtained a new permit for plying the passenger bus from Gwalior to Gohad 10 minutes before the complainant's bus on the aforesaid permit and against the grant of the aforesaid permit, complainant Harishankar had filed an appeal before the Regional Transport Commissioner and thereafter, revision before the State Transport Appellate Tribunal, Gwalior. Before the Appellate Tribunal, a compromise petition had been filed by both the parties namely complainant Harishankar Singh and second bus operator Jahur Khan and both of them had agreed to change the timings of the bus belonging to Jahur Khan. On this compromise petition, the learned State Transport Appellate Authority had ordered for necessary amendment in the time table of the bus belonging to Jahur Khan and the Transport Commissioner had further directed the Regional Transport Officer, Morena for necessary amendment in the time table as per the compromise petition. For necessary amendment in the concerning time table, complainant Harishankar Singh contacted the appellant/accused, who at the relevant time was working as R.T.O., Morena, for necessary amendment in the permit belonging to Jahur Khan and it is alleged that for necessary amendment in the time table, the appellant/ accused had demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 3000/ - from the complainant Harishankar Singh. Against this illegal demand of bribe, the complainant Harishankar had contacted the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt office, Gwalior and lodged a written report for the alleged illegal act of the appellant/ accused and the concerning, D.S.P., Lokayukt had taken necessary steps for the proposed trap of the appellant/ accused. Phenolphthalein powder was spread on the currency notes of Rs. 3000/ - and it was handed over to the complainant Harishankar for its delivery to the appellant/ accused and necessary Panchnama was also prepared. On 26 -5 -2001 when the trap party reached at the house of the appellant/accused, he was not there. Therefore, again the trap party went at the house of the appellant/ accused on 27 -5 -2001, at that time it is alleged that the complainant Harishankar had given the bribe money of Rs. 3000/ -to the appellant/accused who had put it on the top of the table of the room concerned. Thereafter, the complainant had made certain sign to the trap party. At that time, the concerning Investigating Officer Ramlakhan Bhadoria with two independent witnesses entered into the room and seized the currency notes of Rs. 3000/ - from the top of the table concerned. Necessary seizure memo was prepared and hands of the appellant/ accused were washed in the mixture of sodium carbonate powder then water color turned into pink and then pink colored water was preserved in the clean bottle for its examination by the laboratory concerned. Necessary Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, the trap party returned back to the office and registered a case under section 7 read with 13(1) (d) and 13 (2) of the PC Act against the appellant/accused. He was arrested and released on bail. Thereafter, pink color sodium carbonate water was sent to the FSL for its examination from where the necessary report was received wherein necessary phenolphthalein powder was found proved. Thereafter, during investigation, the necessary prosecution sanction was obtained from the Head of the department concerned and charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Gwalior. The appellant/ accused abjured the guilt and his defense was of false implication in this case due to some enmity with the complainant Harishankar Singh. The learned trial court after taking the required evidence produced by the prosecution by its impugned judgment dated 7 -4 -2005 held the appellant/ accused guilty for the offence under section 7 read with 13 (1) (d) and 13 (2) of the PC Act and sentenced him as mentioned hereinabove; feeling aggrieved by which, the appellant/accused has preferred this appeal.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsels for the parties, perused the record. Learned senior counsel Shri Surendra Singh appearing on behalf of the appellant/ accused challenged the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence mainly on two grounds. Firstly that the demand of bribe money by the accused as stated by the complainant has not been corroborated by the independent witnesses, therefore, the demand of bribe is not proved by the prosecution by cogent evidence. Similarly, it is also submitted by learned counsel for the appellant that the seizure of the bribe money is also not from the personal search of the appellant/ accused but this had been seized from the top of the another table which was lying in the same room. Therefore, it is also not proved that any bribe money has been seized from the conspicuous possession of the appellant/ accused and on the table concerned, the bribe money can easily be planted by the complainant who is having personal enmity with the appellant/ accused. Similarly, it is also stressed by learned Sr. counsel for the appellant that the presence of the phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the appellant/ accused is also not conclusive proof of the fact that the concerned bribe money has been received by the appellant/ accused from the complainant. Before the hand -wash of the appellant/ accused, the hands of the police constable who had caught the appellant accused's hands had not been washed and this phenolphthalein powder can also be easily planted at the time when the appellant/ accused was caught by the concerning police constable. Therefore, the presence of the phenolphthalein powder on the hands of the appellant/ accused is also not proved beyond reasonable doubt.