KANHAIYALAL CHOUDHARY Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Kanhiyalal Choudhary (since deceased) being aggrieved by the judgment dated 14. 10. 99 passed in Special Case No. 7/93 by the learned special Judge, Hoshangabad convicting the accused under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to undergo RI for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, under Section 13 (1) (d) (i) read with Section 13 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to RI for 2 years and pay fine of rs. 500/-, in default of depositing the fine amount to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, convicting the appellant under Section 218,467,468 and 474 IPC to undergo RI for one year, RI for 3 years and fine of R s. 500/-, R. I for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- and RI for 3 years and fine of rs. 500/-,in case of failure to deposit the fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for one month, the substantive sentences to be run concurrently, had filed this appeal.

(2.) IT is to be noted that during pendency of the appeal, the sole appellant kanhiyalal Choudhary expired, therefore, the legal representative of the deceased made an application seeking permission to prosecute the appeal. The application was allowed and Prakash Choudhary, son of the original appellant, was allowed to continue with the appeal.

(3.) THE prosecution case in short is that on 4. 4. 1988 one Dhirendra manohar Agarwal (P. W. 1) made a complaint to the Office of Lokayukt that the complainant was required to meet the accused on 24. 3. 88, the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/- for making the assessment on the lower side with a threat that if the desired amount is not paid then the complainant would be taxed on the higher side. It was reported to the Lokayukt office that the complainant was not ready and willing to pay the demanded amount, therefore, he was lodging the complaint. On 4. 4. 88 panchnamas' were prepared, a sum of Rs. 1000/- was taken from the complainant and phenolphthalein powder was applied to the same, particular panchnama was again prepared and thereafter the complainant was asked to go and meet the accused and after the accused had received the money, to give a particular indication to the trap party so that the accused was caught red-handed. On 4. 4. 1988, the trap party and the complainant went to Itarsi station but the accused had not come, therefore, the entire trap programme fizzled out , however, the entire thing was re-done on 5. 4. 88. The complainant was required to go to the office of the accused and offer him money and make the gesture as suggested so that the accused was caught red-handed. According to the prosecution, the accused who had earlier demanded a sum of Rs. 1000/-, on 5. 4. 88 demanded a sum of Rs. 2000/-, on that, the complainant came out, asked the leader of the trap party that what he was required to do, the leader suggested him that the complainant may take sum of Rs. 1000/- from one of his colleague, mix the said notes with the marked notes and give the money to the accused. It was accordingly done and thereafter the indication was given, the trap party and the panch witnesses entered in the office of the accused, apprehended him, took-out the notes from the pocket immediately thereafter the hands of the accused were washed. Lo and behold, the water became pink. Immediately the shirt's pocket was also washed and the water became pink. A receipt book bearing Book No. 1447 was also seized and certain other articles were also seized. The accused was taken in custody, however, he did not offer any explanation on the spot. After recording statements of the witnesses and preparation of the Panchnamas on the spot and thereafter on completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed. The accused abjured the guilt, however, pleaded that he never demanded any money from the complainant, in fact, certain recovery proceedings were going-on against the Firm of the uncle of the complainant and as, the complainant wanted stay against the auction of the property, the complainant had offered sum of rs. 2000/- towards the recovery so that some breathing time was given. It was also stated before the court that after receiving the money, the accused wanted to prepare the receipt but before he could complete the receipt, the said receipt book No. 1447 containing the receipt in dispute bearing serial no. 92, were seized. It was also submitted by him that, no case of the complainant was pending consideration for assessment and, therefore, there was no good reason for the accused to demand any money.