SHANKAR LAL GEHLOT Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN AND OTHERS
LAWS(RAJ)-2018-9-102
HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN
Decided on September 25,2018

Shankar Lal Gehlot Appellant
VERSUS
State of Rajasthan And Others Respondents

JUDGEMENT

VIJAY BISHNOI,J. - (1.) By this writ petition the petitioner has challenged the validity of the order dated 10.10.2013 passed by the respondent No. 2, whereby the prosecution sanction has been accorded to prosecute the petitioner for the offences punishable under sections 7, 13(1)D and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter to be referred as 'the PC Act') read with Section 120- B IPC while exercising powers under Section 19 of PC Act.
(2.) Brief facts of the case are that on 21.07.2011, Sawaila and Suresh Kumar (hereinafter to be referred as 'the complainants') submitted a report before the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Jalore (hereinafter to be referred as 'the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore') while alleging that on 20.07.2011, petitioner-Shankar Lal Gehlot, Executive officer of Municipal Board, Bhinmal came to their houses and threatened them that their houses, are encroachments, therefore, he would demolish them. He asked them to give him illegal gratification of Rs. 1,00,000/-, Rs. 50,000/- for each house for not demolishing their houses. Petitioner-Shanker Lal Gehlot was persisting with his threat to demolish their houses, therefore, both the complainants submitted a report before the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore that they are not desirous to give the illegal gratification to the petitioner.
(3.) On the basis of report submitted by both the complainants, verification proceedings were arranged. It is further alleged by the prosecution that during the course of verification proceedings, the demand of bribe was verified in the voice recording carried out in presence of Teja Ram, Constable of Anti Corruption Bureau. On 22.07.2011, a trap was arranged and after summoning two independent witnesses, the voice recording was replayed in their presence and it was found that the accused-petitioner had instructed the decoy to pass on the bribe money to Surender Singh, Driver. Both the complainants presented the currency notes worth Rs. 60,000/- each to the I.O. as bribe money to be given to Surender Singh, Driver. After the necessary formalities, the trap party reached Bhinmal and on enquiry regarding whereabouts of Surender Singh, it was found that he was sitting in the garden of Municipality Board, Bhinmal, then the micro tape recorder was started and the decoy along with two witnesses were sent to meet him and to pass on the currency notes. After some time, when two decoy came back and informed the Dy.SP, ACB, Jalore (Trap Laying officer) (hereinafter to be referred as 'the T.L.O.') that the Driver Surender Singh had refused to accept the bribe money then the T.L.O. instructed the decoy to talk to petitioner and try to pass on the tainted money to him. In that proceedings it is further revealed that the petitioner refused to make any conversation with the decoy due to citing night time. The trap was accordingly postponed to 23.07.2011.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.