Back
2008 Supreme(Chh) 236
2008(3) C.G.L.J. 442
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
T.P. Sharma, J.
GHUNNU RAM GAWADE - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1990,
Decided on : 4.9.2008.
Shri V.G. Tamaskar, Advocate, for the Appellant.
Ms. Sangita Mishra, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent /State.
The court emphasized that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification need not occur during office hours to constitute criminal misconduct, and the defect in the investigation did not affect the competence of the trial.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act - Criminal Misconduct - Section 5(2) - Section 161 IPC - Section 5 (A)(1) of the Act - Section 17 of the Act of 1988
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a clerk in the Tehsil Office, demanded Rs. 60 as illegal gratification for issuing a document. The complainant reported the matter to the Vigilance Department, leading to a trap where the accused accepted the money. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant, who appealed against the judgment.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting illegal gratification, upholding the conviction. However, considering the amount and the lengthy trial, the court reduced the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000.
Issues: The issues included the legality of the investigation, the competency of the investigating officer, and the validity of the sanction for prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the defect in the investigation did not affect the competence of the trial and that the sanction for prosecution was valid. The court also emphasized that demand and acceptance of illegal gratification need not occur during office hours to constitute criminal misconduct.
Final Decision: The appeal was partly allowed, maintaining the conviction but reducing the sentence to three months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 3000, to run concurrently.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.07.1990 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, Durg, in Special Case No. 1/1 988 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 R.I. for three months u/s 5(2) of the Act and to undergo R.I. 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 (A)(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 6.7.1986 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 Tehsil 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 Tehsildar, Navagarh. On the basis of said certificate the Naib Tehsildsr 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 thc 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 often denomination number of which were taken down in the preliminary Panchnama 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-1 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
