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

2024 Supreme(Chh) 145

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, J.
Binodanand Jha, son of Shri Brahmanand Jha – Appellant
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh (now Chhattisgarh) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.3030 of 1998
Decided on : 28-06-2024

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Shri Maneesh Sharma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri Mayur Khandelwal

IMPORTANT POINT
The judgment establishes the high standard of proof required to establish the offence of illegal gratification by a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, emphasizing the need to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery.

Headnote:

Illegal Gratification - Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Section 7, Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - The judgment discusses the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by a public servant, emphasizing the need to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery to establish the offence. The court refers to various precedents to highlight the high standard of proof required and the essential elements of the offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Fact of the Case:

The case involves the conviction of a Branch Manager in a corruption case where he was accused of demanding a bribe for the disbursement of a loan. The prosecution alleged that the accused demanded a bribe of Rs.7,000 from the complainant for the loan sanction.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that while the recovery of money was proved, the demand and acceptance of the bribe were not established. The court noted contradictions in the statements of witnesses and concluded that the evidence did not establish the guilt of the accused. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant of the charges.

Issues: The key issue revolved around the establishment of demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, as required under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need to prove demand, acceptance, and recovery to establish the offence of illegal gratification by a public servant. It referred to various precedents to highlight the essential elements and the high standard of proof required under the Act.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the judgment under challenge, and acquitted the appellant of the charges. The appellant's bail bonds were to continue for a further period of 6 months.

JUDGMENT :

1. The instant appeal preferred under Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated 15.12.1998 passed by the Special Judge, C.B.I., Jabalpur in Special Case No.44 of 1997, whereby the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction

Sentence

Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.8,000 in default of payment of which to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988

Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.8,000 in default of payment of which to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months

The jail sentences are directed to run concurrently

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in January-February, 1997 the Appellant was posted as a Branch Manager in Dena Bank, Branch Damakheda, District Durg. He was entrusted besides other duties to disburse loan/subsidy under Pradhan Mantri Yojna. Complainant Tejender Dev Chavre (PW4) had submitted an application for sanction of a loan through District Industries Centre for the purpose of electronic and watch parts. His case for loan was sent to Damakheda Branch of Dena Bank where the Appellant was the Branch Manager. The Complainant had gone to the Appellant in the Bank on 29.1.1997 for getting information about his loan. He came to know that his loan of Rs.95,000 was sanctioned under the Pradhan Mantri Rojgar Yogna, but, the Appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.7,000 from the Complainant for disbursement of the said loan and asked him to pay that amount of Rs.7,000 on 20.2.1997. On 14.2.1997 the Complainant lodged a written complaint (Ex.P2) before the Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur regarding the demand of the bribe by the Appellant. First Information Report (Ex.P28) was registered on 14.2.1997 and CBI Inspector Dhirendra Kumar (PW6) was directed for investigation into the matter. The Complainant was called to the S.E.C.L. Guest House, Bilaspur on 20.2.1997 where panch witnesses Sahwal Chandra (PW5) and Rajeshwar Singh (PW2) were also called for the purpose of giving them a demonstration of trap proceedings. The panch witnesses were introduced with the Complainant and his complaint (Ex.P2) was given to them for perusal. They verified the complaint from the Complainant. A demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was given there. Numbers of the currency notes submitted by the Complainant were noted. Those currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder and thereafter given to the Complainant for giving them as bribe. The Complainant was inculcated to give a signal after giving the bribe. All these proceedings were recorded as a memorandum (Ex.P3). The trap party proceeded towards Damakheda Branch of Dena Bank and reached there at about 1:30 p.m. The Complainant and Rajeshwar Singh (PW2) entered the Bank. On being demanded, the Complainant gave the tainted money of Rs.7,000 to the Appellant to which after counting the Appellant kept in the drawer. On receiving a signal from the Complainant, the trap party entered the Bank, caught the Appellant and got his right hand washed in a solution of sodium carbonate and thereafter his left hand was also got washed in a different solution of sodium carbonate. Colour of both the solutions turned into pink. Both the pink solutions were sealed in bottles. Hands of the Complainant were also got washed in a solution of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solution turned into pink. That solution was also sealed. Numbers of the recovered tainted currency notes were noted and sealed in an envelope. A memorandum of all the proceedings was prepared. The amount which was received by the Appellant from Devendra Kosle was also seized vide Ex.P8. Loan case files of Complainant Tejender Dev Chavre and Devendra Kosle were seized

      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
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top