IMPORTANT POINT
Where recovery of money coupled with other circumstances lead to conclusion that respondent received gratification, Court would draw presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2) - Respondent-accused, an Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police, demanded and accepted Rs. 3500/- from complainant to avoid seizure of rifle of complainant and his arrest pursuant to a complaint - Trap was laid as per direction of Superintendent of Police by joining two public witnesses as panch witnesses - Accused demanded and accepted money from complainant on appointed spot and was apprehended and arrested - Currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein were recovered from his possession - Test of sodium carbonate solution done on respondent gave positive test - Trial Court convicted accused on evidence of complainant and panch witnesses and awarded sentence of one year imprisonment u/s 7 and 13(1)(d) respectively - High Court set aside conviction in appeal discarding testimony of complainant PW1 on ground that upper right pocket of shirt of accused could not contain 35 currency notes and that perhaps complainant had forced currency notes in pocket of accused - State appeal - Recovery of Rs. 3500/- from accused was fully corroborated by PW1 and two independent witnesses - No material to substantiate plea that PW1 implicated accused because of previous enmity - Conviction of respondent was based on cogent and convincing evidence and High Court erred in setting it aside - Conviction and sentence recorded by trial Court were liable to be restored.
       We have carefully considered the rival contentions. The fact of recovery of Rs. 3500/- from the respondent has been fully corroborated by Badan Singh, PW1 and also by two independent witnesses, Aditya Chobey PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma PW11. (Para 28)
       We do not find any merit in the submission that Badan Singh PW1 because of previous enemity had falsely implicated the respondent in the instant case. The respondent had placed no material to substantiate this argument. (Para 29)
       We also do not find any merit in the statement that the guns were not seized. According to the prosecution version, when the respondent demanded and accepted the bribe of Rs. 3500/-, there was no question of seizing the guns. (Para 30)
       On careful examination of the prosecution evidence and the documents on record, we too come to the definite conclusion that the respondent is clearly guilty of the offence and the Special Judge was fully justified in convicting the respondent under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The High Court erroneously set aside the well reasoned judgment of the Special Judge.(Para 31)
       In view of the evidence and documents on record, it is difficult to uphold the impugned judgment and consequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court is set aside and the judgment of the Special Judge is restored. (Para 32)
       It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent that a lenient view be taken in this case. The corruption by public servants has become a gigantic problem. It has spread everywhere. No facet of public activity has been left unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and pervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country. Large scale corruption retards the national building activities and everyone has to suffer on that count. As has been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of Haryana reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14, corruption is corroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of the body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public service and demoralizing the honest officers. The efficiency in public service would improve only when the public servant devotes his sincere attention and does the duty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself assiduously to the performance of the duties of his post. The reputation of corrupt would gather thick and unchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and gain notoriety much faster than the smoke.(Para 33)
       The respondent was convicted by the Special Judge on the basis of overwhelming evidence on record. The High Court without appreciating the facts of this case in proper perspective set-aside the judgment of the Special Court. The reasoning given by the High Court for setting aside the judgment cannot stand the test of scrutiny for a moment and in this view of the matter. Consequently, the judgment and sentence awarded by the Special Court is restored. The appeal filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh deserves to be allowed.(Para 36)

JUDGMENT

Dalveer Bhandari, J. - This appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, dated 30.1.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1999.

2. The brief facts of this appeal, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as follows.

3. The respondent Shambhu Dayal Nagar, who was posted at the Police Station, Malanpur on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

4. According to the version of the prosecution, on 9.8.1996 complainant Badan Singhs sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Bithola Devi, a resident of village Tukera was beaten by Jagmohan, Mahavir etc. who belonged to the same village. A report of the said incident was made by Bithola Devi at the Police Station Malanpur. The investigation of this matter was entrusted to the respondent Shambhu Dayal, Assistant Sub-Inspector. Consequently, he went to the village Tukera at the house of complainant Badan Singh and told him that the opposite party i.e. Mahavir etc. had filed a report against them and in that connection, the rifle of the complainant and Mouser Rifle of Ram Prakash, brother of the complainant would be seized and both, the complainant and his brother would also be arrested. The respondent asked the complainant, Badan Singh, that in case Rs.5000/- was paid to him, he would neither seize the rifles nor arrest them and rather the opposite partys persons will be arrested and sent to jail immediately.

5. On 21.8.1996, Badan Singh, the complainant told the respondent Shambhu Dayal that he would not be able to arrange Rs. 5000/- and he requested the respondent to settle the amount at Rs.3500/-. The respondent agreed to accept Rs.3500/- (bribe money) on the condition that the said amount had to be arranged by the same evening. The complainant was not ready to give the bribe to the respondent and wanted to get the respondent nabbed. Therefore, on 21.8.1996, he went to the office of Shri Pradeep Runwal, Superintendent of Police, Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior with cash of Rs. 3500/- and submitted a written application (Ex.P1) on the above-mentioned subject.

6. The Superintendent of Police directed his subordinates to lay a trap for nabbing the respondent while accepting the bribe. For this purpose, Aditya Chobey, the then Manager, Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior was called with a vehicle. On 21.8.1996, after the arrival of the above-named panch witness Aditya Chobey, PW6 and another Panch witness Srikrishan Chauhan, PW3 at the Special Police Station (Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior), the formal application made by the complainant, Badan Singh, was given to Aditya Chobey. The application was read over to Badan Singh. On the said application, Aditya Chobey gave his remarks and confirmed the contents and submission of the application by the complainant and appended his signatures. Thereafter, the complainant gave 35 currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- for giving them as a bribe to the respondent. The numbers of all these currency notes were recorded. Inspector Surender Rai Sharma, PW11, of the abovementioned establishment got a thin layer of phenolphthalein powder smeared on both sides of these notes by Ram Roop Singh Ojha, Sub-Inspector. The head constable searched Badan Singh, PW1 and Surender Rai Sharma, PW11 and nothing was left in his pocket. The currency notes, smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were kept in the right side pocket of the pant worn by Badan Singh and it was explained to him not to touch these notes before giving to the respondent. Badan Singh was given instructions not to shake hands with the respondent before and after giving those currency notes to him. The complainant after reaching Vijay Mishthan Bhandar asked Srikrishan Chauhan PW3 to proceed and request the respondent to come at

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 1047

IMPORTANT POINTWhere recovery of money coupled with other circumstances lead to conclusion that respondent received gratification, Court would draw presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Cases Referred (2)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where recovery of money coupled with other circumstances lead to conclusion that respondent received gratification, Court would draw presumption u/s 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.