Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2022 Supreme(Raj) 1661

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
Pushpendra Singh Bhati, J.
Lr`s Of Late Shri Shiv Chand – Appellant
Versus
State Of Rajasthan – Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 535/2000
Decided On : 15-07-2022

Advocates appeared:
Mr Vishal Sharma, Advocate, for the Appellant
Mr. Abhishek Purohit, Addl.G.A, for the Respondent

The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not successfully rebutted by the accused, leading to the court upholding the judgment of conviction.

Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7, 13(1)(d)(2) - The court upheld the judgment of conviction against the accused, a head constable, for demanding and accepting a bribe. The court found the explanation provided by the accused to be unconvincing and disbelieved the defense witness. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act was not successfully rebutted by the accused. The judgment of conviction was upheld based on the evidence of official witnesses and the accused's admission.
Fact of the Case:

The accused, a head constable, was convicted for demanding and accepting a bribe from the complainant. The accused provided an explanation that the money received was repayment towards a loan, but the court found it unconvincing. The defense witness's testimony was disbelieved, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act was not successfully rebutted by the accused.
Finding of the Court:

The court upheld the judgment of conviction against the accused based on the evidence of official witnesses and the accused's admission. The defense witness's testimony was disbelieved, and the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act was not successfully rebutted by the accused.
Issues: Whether the accused demanded and accepted a bribe, and whether the statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act was successfully rebutted by the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the explanation provided by the accused to be unconvincing and disbelieved the defense witness. The statutory presumption under Section 20 of the Act was not successfully rebutted by the accused.
Final Decision: The judgment of conviction against the accused was upheld, and the appeal was dismissed. Since the accused had passed away, there was no need to issue any consequential direction as to sending him back to jail.

JUDGMENT

1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been preferred claiming for the following reliefs:-

"It is, therefore, most respectfully prayed that this appeal may kindly be allowed, judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jodhpur dated 7.9.2000 may kindly be quashed and set aside and the accused- appellant may kindly be acquitted for the alleged charges leveled against him."

2. This Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 07.09.2000 whereby the learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act Cases, Jodhpur convicted Shiv Chand, for the offences under Sections 7 & 13 (1) (d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo a sentence of 1 year R.I. along with a fine of Rs.2,000/- in default of payment of which, he was to undergo further 3 months S.I. and 2 years R.I. along with a fine of Rs.4,000/- in default of payment of which he was to undergo further 6 months S.I., respectively.

3. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that convicted person, Shiv Chand passed away, on 21.03.2019, and that his legal heirs have been taken on the record, and are the appellants herein.

4. Brief facts of the case as placed before this Court by learned counsel for the appellants, are that on 02.12.1995, the complainant, P.W. 3, Prem Chaudhary submitted a written report, at Ex. P/8, before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.B. Nagaur, wherein it was alleged on 04.11.1995, a Criminal Case bearing No. 123/1995 was registered against the complainant and his brother before the Police Station, Khinvsar. And it was averred that the complainant's brother went to the Police Station, Khinvsar for lodging a cross case against the same, but the then Head Constable, Shiv Chand, refused to register it, subsequent to which Dalu Ram filed a private complaint before the concerned Court. Due to this, the Head Constable got annoyed. It was further averred that Dala Ram was arrested, in connection to the aforementioned criminal case, on 29.11.1995 and that, Shiv Chand allegedly threatened that he would not release the complainant's brother from custody unless the complainant makes a payment of Rs. 5000/-, at this, the complainant pleaded and allegedly Shiv Chand said that an amount lesser than Rs.1500/- would not be accepted; it was further stated that this transpired on 01.12.1995. And that, the complainant gave him Rs.500/- on the very same day, and told Shiv Chand that he would pay the additional Rs. 1000/- on the subsequent day.

4.1 It was further averred that, not wishing to pay Rs. 1000/-, the complainant approached the concerned authorities at the A.C.B., Nagaur, and subsequently, trap proceedings were arranged by the then Inspector Om Prakash, P.W. 11 after arranging for two motbirs vi.z P.W. 4 Shaitana Ram and P.W. 10 Ram Niwas. And that, during the trap proceedings, the complainant Prem Chaudhary handed over the Rs. 1,000/- to Shiv Chand, which he took and placed in his shirt pocket. Shiv Chand was then apprehended on the spot by the concerned authorities.

5. Learned counsel for the appellants submitted that Shiv Chand, on being apprehended on the spot by the concerned authorities, had provided an extempore explanation that the money that he had received an amount of Rs. 1000/- from the complainant towards repayment of a loan, which the complainant had borrowed from one Jagga Ram, in the presence of one Ram Singh Rajput and Baga Ram Jat.

6. Learned counsel for the appellants further submitted that the presumption made against the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 is rebuttable, and that despite Shiv Chand's clear and justifiable explanation for taking the money handed over to him by the complainant, he was apprehended and taken into custody.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants also submitted that the complainant, P.W. 3 Prem Chaudhary, in his cross - examination, admitted that the accused did not demand an