SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Article Pause Article
judgment-img

2017 Supreme(SC) 27

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.K. SIKRI AND N.V. RAMANA, JJ.
Umesh Manan – Appellants
Versus
State of M.P. Through Special Police Establishment Lokayukta Office – Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 49 of 2017 (Arising Out of SLP (Criminal) No. 1131 of 2015)
Decided On : 09-01-2017

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :- Atishi Dipankar, Advocate.
For the Respondent:- Mishra Saurabh, Advocate.

IMPORTANT POINT
When prosecution establishes the guilt of an accused, he must be convicted.

Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) r/w Section 13(2) – Recovery of incriminating documents from residence of appellant including the file in question and result of the trap establishing appellant’s guilt u/s 7 and 13 – No infirmity in conviction. (Para 11, 12, 14, 15)

       Facts of the case:

       The appellant charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

       Sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the competent authority.

       Trial Court returned the verdict of acquittal.

       In the appeal filed by the respondent/State against the said acquittal, the High Court overturned the judgment of exoneration given by the trial court.

       Finding of the Court:

       There is no infirmity in the impugned judgment.

       Result: Appeal dismissed.

JUDGMENT

A.K. Sikri, J.

Leave granted.

2. The appellant herein was roped in with the charges under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as the 'PC Act'). Being a public servant within the meaning of Section 21 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sanction for prosecution was also accorded by the competent authority. The appellant stood trial. Trial Court returned the verdict of acquittal, holding that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond doubt. In the appeal filed by the respondent/State against the said acquittal, the High Court overturned the judgment of exoneration that was given by the trial court, holding the appellant to be guilty of the aforesaid offences. After convicting the appellant, the High Court has awarded rigorous imprisonment (RI) for one year and fine of L1,000/- or to suffer RI for three months in default under Section 7 of the PC Act. Identical sentence is awarded under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the PC Act with the direction that both the sentences are to run concurrently.

3. In this backdrop, this Court is called upon to decide as to whether the judgment of the High Court is correct or the view taken by the trial court was justified in law.

4. Case of the prosecution, in brief, was that on 28.07.2003, complainant Ajay Gupta made a written complaint Ex.P-2 to Supdt. of Police (Lok Ayukta), Ujjain against the appellant. He stated in the complaint that he wanted sanctioned map of the house of plot Nos. 31 and 32, Swastik Nagar, Ujjain for his own use. The said plots belonged to Shiv Narayan. Complainant applied on 22.07.2003 to Ujjain Municipal Corporation Zone No. 3 under the Right to Information Act for certified copy of the desired sanctioned map and he paid the necessary fee of Rs. 10.50 as per receipt of even date. On 28.07.2003, when he met the appellant in connection with the certified copy of the map, the latter replied that for getting the copy of the sanctioned map, complainant would have to pay Rs. 1000/- bribe and only then the appellant would make necessary endorsement on the application and forward it to the Building Officer and copy of the map would be available only after these steps were undertaken. The appellant asked the complainant to come with the bribe amount to his house next day at 8 a.m. Since the complainant did not want to pay any such bribe, he reported the matter to the Lok Ayukta Authority as per Ex.P-2.

5. On receipt of the complaint, steps to set a trap were initiated. FIR Ex.P.16 was recorded on 28.07.2003. The next day Kaymi was recorded and various steps to be taken at the time of the trapping the appellant were explained to the trap party. The numbers of currency notes to be given were noted down. The trap was then laid and the appellant was caught red-handed with the bribe amount of Rs. 1000/- in his shirt pocket at his house. The appellant was, thereafter, put up for trial for offences under the PC Act as stated earlier.

6. The appellant abjured his guilt. In his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., he stated that complainant was press-correspondent or journalist by profession having nothing to do with the maps. He had no licence (as draftsman for maps) and he was putting pressure for getting maps passed illegally and on refusal by the appellant to oblige, he was falsely implicated by the complainant.

7. We may mention at this stage that before the trial court, the appellant had argued that following circumstances appearing on record were sufficient to question the veracity of the case of the prosecution, which convinced the trial court:

(a) For obtaining information under the RTI Act, no sanction of any authority is required much less that of Overseer and no file ever came to him for his endorsement;

(b) On receipt of application under the RTI Act, it is handled by the concerned clerk, who sends the concerned file to the Drawing Section where the draftsman sends back the file af





















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
whatsapp-icon Back to top