NAVKANT SHARMA Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) FEELING aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27-11-2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Gwalior in Special Case no. 2/2001 convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13 (1) (d) read with section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short "the Act")and sentencing him to suffer Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year and fine of rs. 2,500/- in default further Rigorous Imprisonment of six months on first count and Rigorous Imprisonment of 1 year with a fine of Rs. 2,500/- in default further Rigorous Imprisonment of 6 months, on second count with a further stipulations that both the sentences shall run concurrently, the appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring the appeal under Section 374 (2)of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) IN brief, the case of the prosecution is that Dashrath Singh Rawat (hereinafter referred to as "complainant") was having an electric connection provided by Madhya Pradesh Electricity Board in his flour mill. The electric meter became disordered as a result of which vide Exh. P-4, dated 1-8-2000, he submitted an application to change the electric meter, since, the new electric meter was not available in the market. This application was addressed to assistant Engineer of M. P. Electricity Board. In order to install a new meter, complainant met to the appellant on 2-8-2000. It is said that appellant made a demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/- from the complainant. Since the complainant was not desirous to give illegal gratification and was keen enough to get the appellant caught red handed, he submitted an application before the special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior which is Exh. P-5 making complainant in it that appellant is making demand of illegal gratification of rs. 1,500/- in order to replace the electric meter.

(3.) ON the basis of written complaint (Exh. P-5), the law and the procedure envisaged under the Act as well as under Criminal Procedure Code set in motion. A tape-recorder was provided to the complainant by the Office of special Establishment in order to record the conversation of bribe, as a result of which according to the prosecution, again the complainant approached the appellant, who made the demand of illegal gratification from him. The transcript of tape-recorded conversation is Exh. P-8. Thereafter, complainant again submitted another complaint (Exh. P-9) and on the basis of which, a Dehati nalish (Exh. P-10) was registered against the appellant.