HARCHAND SINGH BELI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was prosecuted for offences under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He has been convicted to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default thereof to suffer further rigorous imprisonment for 3 months under section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and no separate sentence has been passed against him for the offence under section 161 I.P.C.

(2.) Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that the appellant was working as Sanitary Inspector in the Health Department of the State of Madhya Pradesh and at the relevant time was posted at Akaltara. As the Sanitary Inspector he had powers to inspect and prosecute the shop keepers for violation of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration- Act. The complainant Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) had a Kirana shop in village Nariyara under the jurisdiction of the Police Station Pamgarh. The said village Nariyara for the purposes of the provisions of the Prevention of Food Adulteration Act was under the jurisdiction of the appellant. It appears that in the year 1975, Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) was prosecuted for running Kirana shop without license as also for exposing to sell adulterated ground-nut Dil. He was acquitted of the charge of selling adulterated ground-nut Dil but was fined Rs. 200/- for running the Kirana shop without license. It is further the case of the prosecution that after conviction of Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) for running the Kirana shop without license, he had closed his kirana shop and, thereafter, wanted to re-open the shop in the name of his son Ganesh Prasad (P.W. 11) and, therefore, made an application for license, upon which the appellant demanded Rs. 20/- as license fees as also an illegal gratification of Rs. 300/for getting the license for running of the kirana shop. This was on 10.5.1978. Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) opened his shop and it appears that on 11.6.1978, the appellant went to his shop and demanded an amount of Rs. 300/- and threatened that if the said amount is not paid,' the appellant would again prosecute Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) for opening his Kirana shop without requisite license. Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) agreed to pay the amount on 12.6.1978. It appears that Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1), thereafter, went to Nemichand (P.W. 3) and told him about the illegal demand made by the appellant. Nemichand (P.W. 3) thereafter, wrote an application Ex. P-3 to the Vigilance Commission and both, Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) and Nemichand (P.W. 3) together went to Bilaspur on 12.6.1978 and handed over the said application to S. B. Richhariya (P.W. 9) upon which the Vigilance Commission prepared a Panchanama (Ex. P-4). It is further the case of the prosecution that a trap party consisting of S. B. Richhariya (P.W. 9), R. K. Bhargava, Deputy Collector (P.W. 4), Ramratansingh, Head Constable (P.W. 5) Brijbihari Mishra, Head Constable (P.W. 7) and K. K. Verma, Deputy Collector (P.W. 8) along with Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) and Nemichand (P.W. 3) proceeded in a Jeep to Akaltara. According to the prosecution, Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) went inside the house of the appellant while members of the trap party remained outside. It is said that Kaushal Prasad (P.W 1) handed over three hundred rupee notes as per Panchnama Ex. P-4 and made a signal to the trap party by coughing when he handed over the notes to the appellant. The members of the trap party entered the room after hearing the coughing of Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) and on search of the appellant, nothing was found on his person. Seizures of the notes were affected from the window still and they were seized vide Ex. P-8. The hands of the appellant were washed in phenolphthalein solution which turned pink. A Panchanama (Ex. P- 13) vide Ex. P-B was prepared after seizure of the notes. After necessary investigation, prosecution of the appellant followed.

(3.) The defence of the appellant was that since as Sanitary Inspector he had prosecuted Kaushal Prasad (P.W. 1) he was annoyed with and, therefore, had falsely implicated him in this crime. It was further the defence that no money was handed over to him and that the phenolphthalein solution turned pink because he had earlier taken Pargolax which also turns the solution into pink.