Back
2018 Supreme(Chh) 455
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ARVIND SINGH CHANDEL, J.
Devendra Kumar Verma, S/o K.R. Verma - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1854 of 1999
Decided On : 18-09-2018
For the Appellant :Shri T.K. Tiwari, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Shri N.K. Sharma, Dy. Govt. Advocate.
Headnote:
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) – Appeal against Conviction – Demanded Bribe - PW5 had purchased 2 jersey cows by obtaining a loan from the Bank in name of his wife PW1 One of cows was insured with United India Insurance Company and other cow was insured with New India Insurance Company. One of cows died due to illness and other cow died in an accident, he claimed amount of insurance from Bank. For that purpose, he required death certificates of two cows from Appellant, who, at relevant time, was posted he contacted Appellant, the Appellant demanded Rs.300/- as bribe. The Appellant asked the Complainant to come to him with bribe money in the evening and told him that thereafter he will prepare required death certificates. Since Complainant did not want to give bribe to the Appellant, he made a written complaint On the basis of the written complaint a crime was registered – Held, There are material contradictions in the statements of Complainant (PW2), panch witnesses J. Pandey (PW4) and P.S. Nair (PW6) and Investigating Officer (PW7) on the material points. There is also contradiction in the statement about the place of catching the Appellant. Whether the Appellant was caught at the gate of the garden or was caught inside the drawing room of his house is not clear. Looking to the contradictions in the statements of panch witnesses (PW4) and P.S. Nair (PW6), their presence on the spot, their hearing conversation between the Complainant and the Appellant and their witnessing giving and taking of money between the Complainant and the Appellant are doubtful - Statement of shadow witness Inspector Sharma is essential, but he has not been examined by the prosecution, an adverse inference can be drawn against the prosecution. Furthermore, the aforesaid two bottles marked as No.2 and No.3, in which the solutions were preserved after washing of the hands of the Appellant, were not sent for chemical examination. This also creates a doubt that whether colour of those two solutions, after washing of hands of the Appellant, had turned into pink or not. Even if recovery of tainted currency notes from the pocket of the Appellant is accepted, this does not establish that the Appellant had made a demand for bribe money or had accepted the money as bribe. Thus, in my considered view, offence alleged against Appellant is not proved beyond reasonable doubt - Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt - Appeal is allowed
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 5.7.1999 passed by the Special Judge under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (henceforth 'the Act of 1988'), Raipur in Special Criminal Case No.10 of 1994 convicting and sentencing the accused/Appellant as under:
Conviction
Sentence
Under Section 7 of the Act of 1988
Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months
Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988
Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default simple imprisonment for 3 months
The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the relevant date and time, the Appellant was posted as a Pashu Chikitsa Vistar Adhikari at Dharsinva. Complainant Jairam Prasad (PW5) had purchased 2 jersey cows in the years 1989 and 1990 by obtaining a loan from the Bank in the name of his wife Kamla (PW1). One of the cows was insured with United India Insurance Company and the other cow was insured with New India Insurance Company. One of the cows died due to illness on 4.3.1992 and the other cow died in an accident on 25.3.1992. Thereafter, he claimed the amount of insurance from the Bank. For that purpose, he required death certificates of the two cows from the Appellant, who, at the relevant time, was posted as a Pashu Chikitsa Vistar Adhikari at Dharsinva. For this purpose, he contacted the Appellant on 31.3.1992. At that time, the Appellant demanded Rs.300/- as bribe. The Appellant asked the Complainant to come to him with bribe money in the evening of 3.4.1992 and told him that thereafter he will prepare the required death certificates. Since the Complainant did not want to give bribe to the Appellant, he made a written complaint (Ex.P8). On the basis of the written complaint (Ex.P8), a crime was registered. Panch witnesses Kejaram Thakur (PW7) and R.N. Gupta (PW9) were called. They were shown the written complaint (Ex.P8). Both the panch witnesses met with the Complainant. After verifying the complaint from the Complainant, both the panch witnesses put their signatures on the written complaint (Ex.P8). At that time, the Complainant had brought one currency note of Rs.100/- and 4 currency notes of Rs.50/- each, total Rs.300/-. All the currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter they were kept in the right pocket of the shirt worn by the Complainant and he was instructed not to touch the same before giving it to the Appellant. Different solutions of sodium carbonate were prepared and a demonstration of trap was also given. A preliminary panchnama (Ex.P9) was prepared. Numbers of the currency notes of total Rs.300/- submitted by the Complainant were also noted in the preliminary panchnama (Ex.P9). Thereafter, a trap party proceeded towards Dharsinva and reached there at about 6:00 p.m. The Complainant entered the office of the Appellant. There he came to know that the Appellant had gone to Raipur and will reach back to his office soon. The Complainant stayed there. 15 minutes thereafter, the Appellant reached there on his motorcycle and talked to the Complainant. Thereafter, the Appellant returned his house. The Complainant also went behind him to the house of the Appellant. There, the Complainant gave the tainted currency notes of Rs.300/- to the Appellant. The Appellant, after counting those notes, kept the same over a table and also kept some books over those notes. Thereafter, the Appellant gave certificates to the Complainant after putting his signatures and seal thereon. On being given a signal to the trap party by the Complainant, the trap party entered the house of the Appellant. The Appellant got frightened. On being asked, he replied that he had demanded fees of
