TRIBHUVA SINGH THAKUR Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.1993 passed by learned Special Judge, Raipur in Special Case No. 38/1991, whereby and whereunder, the appellants have been convicted under Section 7 and 13 (1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to "as the Act of 1988") and each of the appellants has been sentenced to undergo R.I. for 1 year and fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 5 months. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Balram died. Prosecution story, as unfolded from the records of the case and the judgment of the learned trial Court is that during the period from 3.3.1986 to 5.2.1986, deceased appellant-Balram was posted and working as Property Tax Officer and the appellant Harishchand Yadav was posted and working as Recovery Officer in Nagar Palika Parishad (Municipality), Mahasamund. On 3.3.1986, complainant-Loknath Sahu (P.W.7) made an application in the office of the Municipality for issuance of possession certificate of his House No. 189 in Ward No. 8 (new Ward No. 16). When complainant-Loknath contacted the appellant on 3.3.1986 and 5.3.1986 in connection with grant of certificate, each of the appellant demanded Rs. 100/- bribe saying that if bribe is not given, the appellants will keep on wandering without any result. Further case of the prosecution is that the complainant-Loknath was asked to come with bribe money on 5.3.1986 in the offence of Municipality. As the complainant was not willing to give bribe, a complaint in Ex. P-1 was submitted before the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance). Complaint was verified by D.S.P. Mr. S.K. Verma (P.W.9) and panch witness M.R. Bhardwaj (P.W.1). After verifying the complaint, 4 currency notes each of Rs. 50/- and totaling Rs. 200/- were produced by the complainant and their numbers were noted, phenolphthalein powder was smeared on those currency notes. Thereafter, the complainant was searched and no other currency notes, papers and articles were allowed to be kept with him and the currency notes were kept in the pocket of the complainant with instruction not to touch it before giving it to the appellants and not to shake hand either before or after giving currency notes. The demonstration of reaction of sodium carbonate with phenolphthalein powder was also given to the complainant in the presence of panch witnesses and the solution was kept and sealed in a bottle. Pre-trap panchnama in Ex. P-2 was prepared, in which, the entire proceedings were reduced in writing, singed by panch witnesses.

(2.) In order to prove its case, prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses. Thereafter, the appellants were examined against incriminating circumstances and evidence appearing against them. In their examination, the appellants denied the incriminating circumstances and evidence and raised defence that house tax was outstanding against the complainant and the appellants used to raise objection by making note, therefore, they have been falsely implicated. It has been further stated that farce of proceedings were drawn in close door operation, in the absence of any of the independent witnesses.

(3.) Relying upon case of the prosecution, learned trial Court found each of the appellant guilty of commission of offence alleged and sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment and also imposed fine, which have been described above.