RAMESH PUROHIT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dt. 11.4.07, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Ramesh Purohit for the offences Under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred to as "the Act of 1988" & sentenced him to undergo one year's R.I. & a fine of Rs. 1000/- & in default, to further undergo three months' S.I. for the offence Under Section 7 and two years R.I. & fine of Rs. 1,000/- & in default, to further undergo three months' S.I. for the offence Under Section 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1988 but however acquitted co accused Rajendra Singh for the same charge. Both the accused were acquitted Under Section 120B IPC.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that one complaint Ex. P. 14 was lodged by Sugna Ram Patel, Sarpanch, Gram Panchayat, Patel Nagar, Bilara before the Addl. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur on 9.11.96 that in the year 1996-97, the construction work of Panchayat Bhawan was done under the famine relief work and the total cost of the work was Rs. 3,20,000/-, out of which a sum of Rs. 78,000/- was outstanding. One day prior to lodging of the FIR, he went to Panchayat Samiti, Bilara, where he made a request to the present appellant Ramesh Purohit, BDO and Rajendra Singh, Jr. Engineer about the remaining payment of the work. Thereupon, the BDO Ramesh Purohit told that at the rate of 10%, if he makes the payment, utilization certificate would be prepared. He offered a sum of Rs. 20,000/- but both refused to accept the same. Then, this complaint was lodged and the trap was arranged. In the first trap, it was alleged that the sum of Rs. 32,000/- was recovered from accused Rajendra Singh, which the complainant gave him. During trap, colour of phenolphthalein powder was found on the hands of accused Rajendra Singh and the recovery was made from the commode of battroom of house of Rajendra Singh. Thereafter, accused Rajendra Singh told that the said amount was taken for accused appellant Ramesh Purohit, which has been demanded by him. Thereupon, the police party arranged for a second trap & raided the house of Ramesh Purohit and recovered the same said amount of Rs. 32,000/- from appellant Ramesh Purohit from his pocket, which was given to him by co-accused Rajendra Singh and the colour of phenolphthalein powder was found on the hands of accused appellant Ramesh Purohit. After investigation, both of them were chargesheeted Under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act of 1988 & Section 120B IPC after obtaining prosecution sanction. Both the accused were charged accordingly, to which they pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 22 witnesses. The statements of the accused were recorded Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. They produced six witnesses in defence. After hearing the arguments, learned trial Judge acquitted accused Rajendra Singh but convicted the present accused appellant Ramesh Purohit as above, However, both of them were acquitted Under Section 120B IPC.

(3.) It has been submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that the statement of the complainant Sugna Ram, PW. 12 and of the Investigating Officer viz; Ashok Patni, PW. 22, if read with his running note and the FIR, it is clear that how the case has been concocted, in addition to the partial attitude adopted by the learned trial Judge in acquitting the principal accused, who is Rajendra Singh, J.En., and convicting the present accused, to whom the co accused Rajendra Singh is said to have paid the same said money of bribe. In this regard, he submitted that it was accused Rajendra Singh, who was found with the so called bribe of Rs. 32,000/-, which the complainant Sugna Ram paid to him and when the police came to know that accused Rajendra Singh is the brother in law of Suresh Charan, the officer of the Cooperative Department and friend of the investigating officer Ashok Patni, the burden of taking illegal gratification was shifted on the appellant Ramesh Purohit by entirely changing the FIR. It is further submitted by learned Counsel that the FIR, Ex. P.14, which is now on record, though not proved to have been changed but it can be safely gathered from the evidence of the complainant as well as the investigating officer. In this regard, it is also submitted by the learned Counsel for the appellant that there was neither any demand from the present appellant for the illegal gratification nor any work was pending with him because the utilization certificate is issued by the concerned Engineers and not by the B.D.O. and the concerned Engineer was co-accused Rajendra Singh, J.En., who was been acquitted. That apart, according to him, the second seizure by the same police officer from another person by taking the money from the co accused is prohibited under Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act of 1947". In this regard, he has cited the decisions of the High Court of Goa and of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the cases of Ismail Ibrahim Sayed v. State,1975 CrLJ 1335; Banarsi Dass v. State of Haryana, 2010 2 RajLW 1395 and V. Venkata Subbarao v. State represented by Inspector of Police, A.P., 2007 AIR(SCW) 9.