AMAR CHAND GUPTA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant, Amar Chand Gupta, has been convicted & sentenced as under : -

(2.) EI.R. was chalked out upon the aforesaid written report. The Deputy Superintendent of Police took up the investigation and decided to lay a trap for catching Amar Chand (appellant) red-handed. Two shadow witnesses were called namely, Tara Chand Jain and Babulal Sharma. The report was read over to the complainant (decoy) and in the presence of the police party, the decoy, and the shadow witnesses named above, the investigating officer drew up the preparation report stating about all the preliminary steps taken for entrapping the appellant. The complainant produced currency notes worth Rs. 200/- (consisting of two notes of Rs. 100/- each) which he proposed to give as a bribe to the appellant and upon which, the investigating officer put his initials. The currency notes were treated with phenolphthalene powder and after its demonstration, then given to the decoy with instructions to pay the same to the appellant on his demand and thereafter, give the signal. The shadow witnesses were instructed to remain present contiguous to the decoy so as to peep, see and hear the talks in between the decoy and the appellant. It was also proposed while giving instructions that the decoy accompanied by witnesses would offer to the appellant then would give signal by cleansing his face with handkerchief after passing on the payment of bribe to the appellant and thereupon the raiding party would appear at the scene. At about 9.15 o'clock in the morning the Investigating Officer alongwith trap party and the shadow witnesses proceeded in a Government jeep to Rajgarh where they reached at 10 o'clock. The decoy and shadow witnesses were alighted of the jeep contiguous to the appellant's office, and they proceeded on foot to the RSEB office. The decoy is alleged to have enquired about appellant in the office where the appellant was not found and so, the decoy then proceeded to his house situated in the campus of the RSEB office. In the house, the appellant met the decoy and the decoy is said to have talked about transaction of electrical connection at the tube-well of Papiha Ram and then the tainted notes were given to the appellant. Thereafter, a signal as suggested during the course of paraphernelia of laying the trap, was given by the decoy. So, the members of the trap party rushed to the place of the appellant. The appellant was allegedly frightened. When confronted, the appellant is denied to have received any money as bribe. The hands of the appellant were dipped into sodium carbonate solution which turned pink. The wash was preserved in a sealed bottle. The tainted currency notes were drawn out of the left side bush-shirt pocket of the appellant. The same tallied with the numbers already taken down at the stage of preparation. The shirt of the appellant which he was wearing, was unworn and then dipped in another sodium carbonate solution which also allegedly turned pink. After completion of the investigation and obtaining due sanction for prosecution, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 5(l)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act so also under Sec. 161, IPC, to which the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. In all 13 prosecution witnesses were produced to prove its case. The appellant was examined under Section 313, Cr.P.C. In his statement under Section 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant took his defence plea that he was innocent; he never demanded any bribe from Gangaram nor did he take it; that the tainted currency notes were thrusted into his bush-shirt pocket by Gangaram when it having been hanging in the room. In his written statement, the appellant stated that at about 9.30 or 10 when he came to his house so as to take meals, he had undressed his shirt on account of summer days, and got his shirt hanged by putting it at the door opening to the drawing room, that he had already eaten his meals and had come to his room, he heared of some noise and then he saw Gangaram standing in side the room and then he asked him of his coming to which he shaked his right hand with his hands so as to greet him; that the decoy had asked him of his coming to the office then he proceeded to outside. Then the appellant when was being ready to wear the dress including shoe and shirt which was being hanged at the door, saw Gangaram coming alongwith 6-7 personnel inside his room and all of them surrounded him and one of them caught hold of him and then Dy. S.P. interrogated him about taking bribe money from Gangaram to which he had denied to have done so but Gangaram then replied to the Dy.S.P. that the money was kept in the shirt pocket of the appellant. According to the written statement of the appellant, the shadow witnesses accompanying the trap party had also told the Dy.S.P. that in their presence Gangaram had inserted/thrusted bribe money/tainted currency notes into shirt pocket of the appellant. According to the appellant, he had also given out to the trap party that nothing was to be done at his level in the matter of which they have alleged.

(3.) After hearing both the parties, the learned trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offences charged and sentenced him as indicated in first para of this judgment.