Back
2008 Supreme(Chh) 238
T. P. SHARMA, J.
Ghunnu Ram Gawade
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh.
Crl. Appeal No.673 of 1990
Decided On : 4-9-2008.
V.G. Tamaskar, for Appellant; Ms. Sangita Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for Respondents.
The judgment emphasizes the importance of proving the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification, the validity of the investigation, and the necessity of a valid sanction for prosecution in corruption cases.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Misconduct - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Indian Penal Code - Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code - 5(2) - 161
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a clerk in the office of Tahsildar, demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 60 from a complainant for issuing a document. The complainant reported the matter to the Vigilance Department, and a trap was set up to catch the appellant accepting the bribe.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, and upheld the conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the investigation, competency of the investigating officer, and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant need not occur during office hours, and the investigation by an unauthorized officer does not affect the competence of the trial unless it causes serious prejudice to the accused. The court also emphasized the importance of a valid sanction for prosecution.
Final Decision: The appellant's sentence was reduced to three months of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000, to be served concurrently for the offenses under Section 5(2) of the Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-7-1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Durg, in special Case No. 1/1988 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short the "Act") and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and pay fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months u/S. 5(2) of the Act and to undergo RI for one year u/S. 161, IPC
2. The judgment of the trial Court is challenged on the ground that without there being any proof of motive or reward and acceptance or recovery of the alleged illegal gratification in breach of mandatory provisions of Section 5 (1) of the Act, learned Special Judge has committed an illegality in convicting and sentencing the accused/ appellant as mentioned above.
3. Heard Shri V.G. Tamaskar, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Ms. Sangita Mishra, Panel Lawyer for the respondent/State and perused the material available on record including the judgment impugned.
4. Case of the prosecution in short is that on 16-7-1986 accused/appellant was posted as clerk in the office of Tahsildar, Navagarh. Another accused Gotilal was posted as peon in the same office. Co-accused Jaleshwar was carrying out the work of Arji Navis in the premises of Tahsil Office. Co-accused Lakhanlal is the brother of accused Jaleshwar. Complainant Chandan Das was an agriculturist residing in village Manpur. As he was in need of Rin Pustika relating to his land, he produced the required certificate before the Naib Tahsildar, Navagarh. On the basis of said certificate the Naib Tehsildar directed for issuance of Rin Pustika to complainant chandan Das. Complainant Chandan Das went to the accused/appellant for collecting the Rin Pustika where complainant produced the said certificate Ex. P-1 before the accused/ appellant. On receiving the certificate, accused/appellant asked the complainant as to how much money did he bring with him. When the complainant said that he was having with him the cost of the Rin Pustika which was Rs. 2/- the accused/appellant told him that the Rin Pustika would not be given for Rs. 2/- and he would get the Rin Pustika after paying Rs. 60/- and returned the said certificate to him.
5. Complainant came back to his village to arrange the money asked for but on being advised by the villagers that the Rin Pustika is provided for Rs. 2/- he went to the office of Lokayukt, Raipur and filed the written complaint Ex. P-2. Superintendent of Police posted in the office of Lokayukt after receiving the complaint directed Shri B. D. Dhananjay who was posted as Inspector of Police in the Lokayukt office to investigate the matter. He also provided the complaint Ex. P-2 to the complainant for his satisfaction. Thereafter, he called Panch witness Surendra Kumar Saxena (PW-5) who read over the contents of Ex. P-2. The complainant told him that he did not want to give the bribe on that day to the accused/ appellant and requested for taking action against him. On being asked, he produced six currency notes of ten denomination number of which were taken down in the preliminary Panchanama Ex. P-1 and applied a layer of phenolphthalein powder thereon and kept the same in the pocket of the shirt of the complainant. They also asked the complainant not to shake hand with anyone and give the said currency notes to the accused/appellant on demand being made by him and while giving the money he should give the signal to them by keeping his hand over his head. Reaction of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate was demonstrated. Preliminary Panchnama Ex. P-3 was prepared. The complainant and the trap party proceeded for the spot. Complainant went to Tehsil office and after coming back after some time, informed the trap party that the accused/appellant had gone t
