BAPULAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant seeks to challenge his conviction under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and consequent sentences of R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 and R.I. for two years and fine of Rs. 1,000.00 respectively and in default of payment of fine, to suffer additional R.I. for three months on each count vide judgment dated 3.7.1996 passed in Special Criminal Case No. 6/87 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Garoth.

(2.) The prosecution case in narrow compass was that the complainant Nanda (PW-6) resident of village Khajuri, Tehsil Manasa, submitted an application in Irrigation Department for grant of lease/Patta of his own submerged land in Gandhi Sagar Dam for agricultural purposes, which was rejected by the Irrigation Department, but the appellant assured complainant that if he pays him Rs. 1,400.00 then he would get permission for the land on Patta. The matter was settled in Rs. 1,100.00. Complainant was not inclined to give this amount to the appellant, therefore, he submitted a complaint to the SDO, Manasa PW- 8 Shri B.S. Rawal. Shri Rawal (PW-8) called SDO(P), Manasa and issued instructions for proceedings. SDO(P) directed the complainant Nanda to bring Rs. 1,100.00. Complainant reached to the Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) as well as the SDO(P), Manasa and gave Rs. 1,100.00. Both the officials made their signatures on those 1,100.00 rupees currency notes. They also instructed the complainant for giving this very money to the appellant and after payment to raise signal to this effect. On 22.8.1983, the complainant Nanda approached the appellant and both went to Shanti Niketan Hotel situated in the area of Gandhi Sagar Dam. Complainant made the payment of Rs. 1,100.00 to the appellant and thereafter gave signal to this effect, which attracted the Sub-Divisional Officer as well as the SDO(P). Both these officials along with the witnesses reached inside the hotel and seized the amount from the appellant. The proceedings of seizure were drawn and appellant was arrested. Police registered the criminal case for commission of offence punishable under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(2) of the Act. On completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

(3.) Appellant denied the charges. He did not examine any witness in defence. His contention was that the President Ramgopal and Member Bal Kavi Bairagi of Twenty Point Programme Committee had pressurised him for receiving agreement of so many persons, which was denied by him because of which he was falsely implicated. Now the complainant at their instance and witnesses were speaking against him because of political pressure. On conclusion of trial, learned trial Court finding the prosecution case proved, convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated here in above.