IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
PUSHPENDRA SINGH BHATI, J.
Madan Lal - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 134, 115 of 2000
Decided on : 25-05-2022
Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 - section 161,164 - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7,11,12,13,13(1)(d),13(1)(d)(i)(ii),13(2),14 – Examination of witnesses by police – Recording of confessions and statement – Offence relating to public servant being bribed - Criminal misconduct – Punishment for habitual offender - Held, This Court therefore observes that learned Court below has passed impugned order after finding that a Demand was made from appellants herein, coupled with a recovery of same from them - which is further corroborated by evidences of testimony of witnesses, as discussed above, and by chemical test conducted upon hands of both accused herein further proves case of prosecution - Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
1. These criminal appeals under Section 374 Cr.P.C. have been preferred against the judgment dated 23.03.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Bikaner in Sessions (Prevention of Corruption) Case No.11/95 (121/97), whereby the accused-appellants were convicted for the offences under Sections 7 & 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as ‘Act of 1988’); for the offence under Section 7, each of the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-and; for the offence under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2), each of the accused-appellants were sentenced to undergo one year’s rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default of payment of the aforesaid fine, each of the accused-appellants were to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment. The sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. As the pleaded facts and the record would reveal, the charge against the present accused-appellants is that accused-appellant Madan Lal and accused-appellant Narendra Kumar, while, at the relevant time, being posted as Enforcement Inspector and Office Assistant, respectively, in the Supply Department, Sri Ganganagar, both being hand in glove with each other, demanded and received an illegal gratification to the tune of Rs.400/-in to be shared equally (earlier demand of Rs.500/-was made, but with due negotiation on count of poor financial condition of the complainant, the same was settled for a sum of Rs.400/-).
2.1 Such illegal gratification, as per the prosecution, was demanded and received by the accused-appellants, for the purpose of enabling the complainant (Sanjeev Kinara) to obtain the Rajasthan Trade Authority License (RTAL) (also referred to as ‘license’) in connection with sale of Food Grains and Food Oils; for obtaining such license, the complainant submitted an application before the Supply Department, Sri Ganganagar.
2.2 Furthermore, as per the prosecution, the accused-appellants, by corrupt and illegal means, while otherwise abusing their official position as a public servant, obtained for themselves the pecuniary advantage to the extent of the aforementioned illegal gratification from the complainant, for the purpose, as indicated above.
3. The genesis of the dispute is traceable to a written application submitted by the complainant on 30.06.1994 before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau (ACB), Sri Ganganagar, to the effect, amongst others, that he had submitted an application for obtaining the license for the aforesaid purpose before the Department, wherein the accused-appellants, at the relevant time, were working in their respective official capacity; this is more so when, as per the complainant, he had completed all the requisite formalities and produced before the Department all the necessary documents, alongwith his application.
3.1 On such application/report, the case was taken on file by the then Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACB, and thereafter, the necessary trap against the present accused-appellants was arranged, in the usual mode, while also making arrangement of two dependent witnesses, namely, Gyan Chand and Sunil Kumar Madan, who at the relevant time, were posted and working in the Urban Improvement Trust, Sri Ganganagar.
3.2 After usual efforts, the trap was finally being made in the Office of District Supply Officer, Sri Ganganagar, where both the accused-appellants were caught red-handed with the respective amount demanded and received by them as illegal gratification. Upon being so caught, accused-Narendra Kumar’s hands were tested under the Sodium Carbonate Solution, and resultantly, fingers of his both the hands turned pink and the said solution thereafter was kept in two separate and sealed glass bottles; similarly, fingers of accused-Madan Lal’s hands were also tested under the Sodium Carbonate Solution
A. Subair vs. State of Kerala (2009)6 SCC 587
B. Noha Vs. State of Kerala and Ors. (2006) 12 SCC 277
Guruviah & Ors. Vs. The State (2019) 8 SCC 396
Mukhtiyar Singh (since deceased) through His Legal Representative Vs. State of Punjab
P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. Dist. Inspector of Police & Anr.
State of Kerala and another vs. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450
Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406
State of Rajasthan Vs. Gurmail Singh
State of M.P. & Ors. Vs. Ram Singh (2000) 5 SCC 88
State of A.P. v. Kommaraju Gopala Krishna Murthy (2000) 9 SCC 752
State of Gujarat Vs. Bhalchandra Laxmishankar Dave (2021) 2 SCC 735
State through Inspector of Police
The main legal point established in the judgment is the necessity of proving both demand and recovery for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the burden of proof on the accused to ....
The absence of proof of demand for illegal gratification is critical; mere acceptance of money is insufficient for conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The essential element of demand for illegal gratification under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act must be proved, and mere possession and recovery of money without evidence of voluntary a....
Illegal gratification – Allegation of demand of gratification and acceptance made by a public servant has to be established beyond reasonable doubt – Mere possession or recovery of currency notes is ....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to prove demand and recovery of illegal gratification for offences under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.