STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. MURLIDHAR GAUR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The instant application seeking leave to appeal has been preferred by the State of Rajasthan challenging the judgment dated 02.07.2010 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Act., Jodhpur in Cr. Regular Case No. 19/2007 arising out of F.I.R. No. 201/2004 PS. Anti Corruption Bureau acquitting the respondent from the charge under Section 7 and 13(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. This Court whilst considering the application for leave to appeal issued show cause notice to the respondent on 29.02.2012. The respondent has put in appearance in person and argued the matter himself.

(2.) Succinctly stated the facts of the case are that one Surendra Vaishnav submitted a written report before the S.P Anti Corruption Bureau, Jaipur to the effect that a false case had been registered against his maternal uncle P.B. Ramchandra Vaishnav at Police Station Raipur Dist. Pali under Sections 498A, 406 and 323 IPC being F.I.R. No. 96/2004. The investigation of the said F.I.R. was being conducted by the respondent Murlidhar Gaur who was posted as the Circle Officer, Jaitaran at the relevant time. The complainant alleged that the C.O. Murlidhar Gaur started demanding bribe from P.B. Ramchandra his maternal uncle, the accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2004. He further alleged that the respondent had called up his uncle on phone and demanded bribe giving a threat that the bribe should be paid or else the respondent CO. would implicate him in a case of rape. It was further alleged in the F.I.R. that the respondent demanded that Rs. 50,000/- bribe should be paid to him or else the accused Ramchandra would face dire consequences. It was further mentioned in the report that as the informant's uncle resided at Madras therefore he could not travel down immediately and thus the informant approached the respondent C.O. on 26.08.2004 and on that day again the respondent persisted with his illegal demand of Rs. 50,000/-. After bargaining the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 20,000/-. It is alleged that the respondent informed the first informant that the amount of bribe should be paid to him immediately or else a case would be registered under Section 376 IPC against the accused in F.I.R. No. 96/2004. At the conclusion of the report the complainant mentioned that his uncle was not desirous of giving bribe to the accused and that he be punished for the demand of illegal gratification. Upon receiving the said report, the S.P. Anti Corruption Bureau. Jaipur assigned the proceedings to the Addl. S.P. Crime Branch on 27.08.2004. Shri D.C. Sharma Dy. S.P. was sent along with the respondent for verification of the demand of bribe. The informant called the Circle Officer on his mobile number from a land line number at Jaipur. It is alleged that as per the telephonic conversation, the demand of bribe was verified and was recorded in an audio cassette. The verification transcript was prepared and the cassette was sealed. Thereafter the complainant was called to the R.T.D.C. Guest House, Barr on 29.08.2004. On 29.08.2004 the Addl. S.P. formed a team and initiated the trap proceedings. The complainant (decoy) Sh. Surendra along with Panch Witnesses Sukh Ram Choudhary, A.En. Municipal Corporation, Jodhpur and Girdhargopal met the trap party at the R.T.D.C. Guest House Barr. The formalities for laying the trap were rehearsed in presence of the panchas and the decoy and thereafter the currency notes worth Rs. 18,000/- presented by the complainant were treated with phenolphthalein powder and were given back to the complainant for being passed on as bribe to the accused. The complainant was also provided with a mini tape recorder and was instructed to record the conversation with the accused at the time of passing over of the currency notes. The complainant called the accused on his land line number and thereafter the complainant as well as the Panchas were sent to the house of the accused and behind them two of the employees of the Anti Corruption Bureau were also sent to take stock of the situation. The other members of the trap party took up their respective positions. At about 9.45 P.M., the complainant came out of the house of the accused and gave the pre-arranged signal where after the Addl. S.P. gave signal to other members of the trap party to reach the house of the accused and accordingly the trap party reached there. The decoy informed the members of the trap party that the accused was inside his house and that on his instruction, the bribe money of Rs. 18,000/- had been placed by the complainant under a tray lying on the table in his drawing room.

(3.) On ringing the bell of the main gate, a person wearing a night gown opened the gate. The Additional S.P. introduced himself and then entered into the house of the accused. The person who had opened the gate upon enquiry disclosed his name to be Murlidhar Gaur Dy. S.P. Circle Officer Jaitaran. The trap party entered into the house of the accused and the Trap Laying Officer i.e. Addl. S.P. asked the accused about the acceptance of bribe on which initially the accused became apprehensive and later on told that he had not taken any bribe. He further told that somebody projecting himself to be an advocate had come to his quarter and had made an enquiry about F.I.R. No. 96/2004 P.S. Raipur and that the accused took the said person to his drawing room. The advocate was accompanied by another man and on enquiry it was informed that the person accompanying him was his cousin. The accused further stated that he had neither demanded nor had accepted any bribe money from anybody. On this, it is stated that the complainant refuted the statement of the accused and told that the accused Circle Officer was investigating the F.I.R. of dowry harassment going on against his uncle P.B. Ramchandra and that the accused had called his uncle and had asked his uncle to send his representative to meet him for the purpose of taking bribe to give benefit in the F.I.R. No. 96/2004. The complainant further alleged that he had met the accused CO. at his house on 26.08.2004 and requested him that the case was totally false. The accused was further informed that the anticipatory bail applications of all the concerned persons had been accepted. The accused is alleged to have said that acceptance of the anticipatory bail would not matter at all because the matter was still being investigated by him and that if his demands were met he could remove the names of the three persons from the array of the accused in the said F.I.R. The complainant further alleged that the accused CO. demanded a bribe of Rs. 50,000/- for the said purpose and ultimately after bargaining the bribe amount was settled at Rs. 20,000/-. Thereafter the accused called the complainant to his residence with Rs. 20,000/- and assured him that his work would be done. The complainant told that as instructed by the accused he had placed the tainted currency notes under a tray lying on the table in the drawing room.