SAMAILAL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) By this appeal, the appellant assails legality, validity and correctness of impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26-11-1996 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Criminal Case No. 02/1994, whereby and whereunder the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (In short "the Act") and sentenced to undergo R.I. of two years and fine of Rs. 1,000/- for each of the offences and in default of payment of fine, rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the records of the case and the judgment of the trial Court is that the complainant-Santram, P.W.2 purchased one acre land from one Kamta Prasad Thakur and with the sale deed, the complainant approached the appellant, who at the relevant time was posted and working as Patwari of Circle No. 3, Belsara, Tahsil Takhatpur. At that time, the appellant demanded bribe of Rs. 500/- to get mutation done. The complainant gave Rs. 100/- and for the remaining amount sought time. As the complainant was not willing to pay bribe, complaint in Ex. P-2 was lodged by the complainant before the D.S.P. (Vigilance), Bilaspur. Accordingly, trap was arranged. Currency notes of Rs. 400/- were collected from the complainant. Reaction of phenolphthalein powder in sodium carbonate solution was demonstrated in the presence of the complainant and panch witnesses. Phenolphthalein powder was smeared on the currency notes and the same was kept in the pocket of the complainant. After completion of pre-trap proceedings, details were recorded in pre-trap panchnama vide Ex. P-3. Further case of the prosecution is that after completing pre-trap proceedings, trap team proceeded to the house of the appellant. The complainant went into the house of the appellant and handed over the currency notes to the appellant and thereafter, signal was given to the trap party, which arrived at the spot. On appellant stating that the notes were kept in the platform in the room, memorandum Ex. P-4 was recorded and thereafter, currency notes were recovered vide Ex. P-5. Various documents, which included registered sale deed, mutation register and Khasra Panchshala were seized vide Ex.P-6. Hand wash of the complainant and panch witnesses were collected and sealed in bottles and currency notes were also collected. Trap panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Map was prepared vide Ex.P-13. Dehati Nalishi, Ex.P-14 was recorded. FIR was recorded in Ex.P-15. Bottles containing hand wash and wash of currency notes were sent to FSL vide Ex. P-16 and report of the FSL was received vide Ex. P-17. Upon completion of usual investigation and after obtaining sanction for prosecution from the appointing authority vide order dated 10-9-1993, charge sheet was filed before the Court. On the basis of material contained in the charge sheet, learned trial Court framed charges alleging commission of offence under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act on 6-6-1994. The appellant abjured guilt. He was put to trial.

(2.) In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses i.e. Jaykaran Swarnkar, P.W.1, Santram, P.W.2, Sudarshan, P.W.3, Ramdas, P.W.4, R.K. Shrivastava, P.W.5, Ganesh Sharma, P.W.6, Nayan Shah, P.W. 7 and R.J. Toppo, P.W.8. The appellant was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in respect of circumstances and evidence appearing against him, which were denied. The appellant stated that he has been falsely implicated. To prove his innocence and in his defence, the appellant stated that the amount alleged to be given was towards return of loan amount taken by the complainant from the appellant. The appellant examined two defence witnesses i.e. Bhagwan Singh, D.W.1 & Ram Dayal, D.W.2.

(3.) The learned trial Court relying upon the case of the prosecution, disbelieving the defence, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and convicted under Section 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him as described above.