STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. OM PRAKASH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard the arguments advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor. Perused the impugned judgment as well as the record.

(2.) Facts in brief are that Mangilal Lai Meena (P.W. 2) the complainant submitted a written report to the Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh on 17.11.2007 alleging that he was working as an Attendant in the Government Ayurvedic Dispensary, Borda. He required a personal loan from the S.B.B.J. Bank, Chittorgarh for the purpose of digging a well. The loan application was required to be accompanied by the salary certificate. Thereafter, he collected an application form the Bank and approached the office of the District Ayurveda Department, Chittorgarh for getting the signatures of the Ayurveda Officer on his salary certificate. He met the L.D.C. Om Prakash working in the office of the District Ayurveda Officer and handed over the form and affidavit to him. He then approached the District Ayurveda Officer and requested him to sign the salary certificate who refused to sign the document. Thereupon, the complainant returned to Om Prakash and told him that the Ayurveda Officer was not signing his form. Omprakash replied that the Ayurveda Officer would not sign the certificate unless his palms were greased. On this, he paid a sum off Rs. 100/- to Om Prakash who immediately went to the office of the Ayurveda Officer, got the certificate signed and handed it over to the complainant with the instruction that he had to pay an additional sum off 400/- as bribe for the Ayurveda Officer. The complainant mentioned in the report that he was not desirous of paying the bribe and wanted to get the concerned officials trapped. The Dy. S.P., Anti Corruption Bureau, Chittorgarh thereupon proceeded to get the demand verified. The complainant presented four notes of 100 rupees denomination which were dusted with phenolphthalein power and were returned to him for being paid to the accused by way of bribe. He approached the accused respondent and gave him the bribe amount. Thereafter, on receiving the pre-arranged signal, the trap team approached the Ayurveda Office. The respondent Om Prakash was asked whether he had taken bribe from the complainant. He replied that he had taken a sum of Rs. 400/- from Mangilal Meena on the instruction of Shri Badri Narayan Sharma, the Ayurveda Officer. He was about to pay the amount to Badri Narayan but in the meantime, the trap party arrived. On the basis of these proceedings, an FIR No. 301/2007 was registered at the CPS, ACB, Jaipur. The investigating officer came to a conclusion that the District Ayurveda Officer Shri Badri Narayan Sharma, demanded a sum off Rs. 400/- by way of illegal gratification from the complainant through the respondent Om Prakash, L.D.C. for signing the complainant "?s salary certificate. The offences of demand and conspiracy to seek illegal gratification were found to be proved against Badri Narayan Sharma as well as Om Prakash, the respondent herein. The competent authority, however, refused to accord sanction to prosecute the Ayurveda Officer Badri Narayan Sharma by order dated 5.3.2009. Thereupon, a charge-sheet was filed against the respondent Om Prakash alone for the offences mentioned above.

(3.) The Trial Court, by order dated 26.10.2010, framed charges against the respondent, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution examined as many as 16 witnesses in support of its case. The accused, in his statement under section 313 Cr. P.C., took a stance that no work of the complainant Mangilal Meena was pending with him. He neither demanded bribe from Mangilal nor accepted the same. The District Ayurveda Officer had demanded bribe money from the complainant. The complainant got him trapped fraudulently by planting the currency notes on his table. One witness Devkishan Sharma was examined in defence.