DHARMENDRA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This Criminal Appeal under Sec. 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred against the judgment, dtd. 24/9/2001, passed by the Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur convicting the appellant in Sessions Case No. 13/1998 under Sec. 7 and 13 (1) (d), (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act with the following prayer:-

(2.) Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by the learned counsel for the appellant are that on 3/5/1997, the complainant Karnaram approached the appellant, Dr. Dharmendra, because his brother, Jetharam had sustained an injury in the eye and sought a medical report stating the same. And that, it is alleged that the appellant-doctor, told him that he would provide him with a medical report stating therein that Jetha Ram had suffered a grievous injury, and that he demanded a bribe for the same. And that on 4/5/1997, the complainant Karnaram lodged a report at the Anti-Corruption Bureau, Jodhpur averting therein that the appellant-doctor made a demand of a bribe of Rs.2,500.00 And that, on 9/5/1997, trap proceedings were arranged at the house of the appellant-doctor, where he allegedly had told the complainant to meet him him with the bribe amount, and that the complainant had arrived with the bribe amount upon which the A.C.B. officials had smeared phenolphtalein powder, and that the same was kept on the living room table of the appellant while the appellant went inside to drink water. And that the complainant apparently took out Rs.200.00 from the total amount of Rs.2,500.00 and left the remainder of the amount, i.e. Rs.2,300.00 on the table before leaving the appellant-doctor's residence. After which, the A.C.B. apprehended the appellant-doctor, and the currency notes so recovered from the doctor's residence were found to be the same that the complainant had allegedly given him, and that furthermore, the hands of the appellant-doctor was found to be pinkish in colour. And that, he was arrested and charge sheeted, and subsequently convicted by the learned Court below.

(3.) Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there was no work pending with the appellant-doctor on the alleged date of the demand of the illegal gratification i.e. 3/5/1997 neither on the day the trap proceedings were set i.e. 9/5/1997. And that, as is evident from the letter at Ex. 12, on 22/4/1997, the S.H.O. sent the said letter to the medical officer of injured Jetha Ram in which due to injury, there was swelling and bruising/scratches around his left eye, and which was received by the appellant-doctor on 21/4/1997 on the basis of which he prepared the injury report, at Ex. 16, on 21/4/1997 itself. And that, the appellant dispatched the same on 27/4/1997 vide dispatch Register Entry, at Ex. 18, and was received at the Police Station on the same day, as is reflected from the said exhibit placed on the record.