CHANDRABHAN KARDAM Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 4-7-2001 passed by learned Special Judge, Morena in Special case No. 3/1999 convicting the appellant under Sections 7, 13(l)(d)/13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months, two years' rigorous imprisonment and fine Rs. 1,000/-, in default to suffer further rigorous imprisonment of three months, respectively with a further stipulation that both the sentences shall run concurrently, this appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

(2.) In brief the case of prosecution is that Dwarika Prasad Tyagi (complainant) submitted a written complaint on 16-1-1998 in the office of Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior that one public servant in order to get the loan sanctioned is making demand of illegal gratification. The Superintendent of Police deputed Inspector S. L. Rajoriya to do the needful according to law. Accordingly, said Inspector Rajoriya handed over one mini tape-recorder with a C. D. to complainant and a panchnama thereof was prepared. The complainant was tutored how to play and pause the said tape-recorder. The complainant thereafter recorded the conversion in respect of making demand of bribe by the appellant from him and threreafter the said tape-recorder was handed over by the complainant in the office of Lokayukt and a panchnama thereof was prepared. In the office of the special Police Establishment, the transcript of the recorded version of the appellant and complainant was also prepared. Thereafter, complainant submitted another complaint Ex. P/20 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment on the basis of which a Dehati Nalishi was prepared and matter was referred for registration of the case to Bhopal.

(3.) In the complaint Ex. P/20, complainant made complaint that under the scheme of I. R. D. P. he submitted an application in the Block Office of Pahadgarh to obtain loan of Rs. 14,000/- for purchasing two she-buffaloes. The said block officer after preparing the case referred it to State Bank of India, branch Jaura in which appellant was serving on the post of Field Officer and the application is pending for its disposal before the appellant. It is also mentioned in the complaint that in order to get his loan sanctioned, the complainant met appellant several times, but appellant was making demand of bribe from him. On 16-1-1998 he (complainant) came to Lokayukt office and after discussion again went to Morena at the residence of appellant and met appellant who directed the complainant to come in the evening of next day with bribe of Rs. 3,000/- so that his loan may be sanctioned. Since complainant is not keen enough to give any amount of bribe and wanted that appellant should be caught red handed, therefore, he is submitting this complaint.