SHAMBHU DAYAL SHARMA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, (Prevention of Corruption Cases), Udaipur, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Shambhu Dayal for the offence under ss. 7 and 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, and sentenced him to undergo two years' rigorous imprisonment in both the offences and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 eaoh & in default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment in each of the offence.

(2.) Facts leading to this appeal are that on 27.8.1998, complainant Kalu filed a written report that his wife filed a case against him under Sec. 498A Penal Code at the Police Station, Peepalkhunt vide F.I.R. No. 148/1998. While accused appellant was posted as S.H.O., Police Station, Peepalkhunt, he demanded Rs. 4000.00 for giving Final Report in the case. He paid Rs. 2000.00 on 8.8.1998 and agreed to pay the balance later on. On 26.8.1998, he arranged for Rs. 1500.00 to be paid to accused Shambhu Dayal and requested him to deliver the balance amount later on but the SHO threw the amount and asked the constable to put him behind the bars. The complainant apologized. He made this report to the Anti Corruption Bureau and later which recorded tape conversation and the trap was arranged. The currency notes of Rs. 2000.00 were initiated by the Dy. Superintendent of the Bureau with phenolphthalein powder. The same amount was recovered concealed beneath the mattress of the bed and thereafter the case was registered. The chemically sealed bottles were sent for examination at Udaipur and thereafter at Jaipur and challan was filed after obtaining sanction. The accused was charged to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses. The statement of accused was recorded u/s. 313 Cr.PC. He himself appeared in his defence as DW 1. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused appellant as above.

(3.) It has been contended by the learned counsel for the accused appellant that in this case, the complainant has turned hostile and on the basis of the statement of complainant recorded u/s. 164 Cr.RC. and FIR lodged by him, the learned trial Judge has convicted the accused; whereas the statement u/s. 164 CR.P.C. and the FIR can be used only for the purpose of contradiction. According to him, both the chemical reports are contradictory and the recovery has not been made from the hands of the accused appellant, whereas the learned Public Prosecutor has supported the judgment of the trial Court.