Back
2024 Supreme(Raj) 697
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
GANESH RAM MEENA, J.
Sri Lal, S/o. Shri Mangilal Nagar - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 83 of 1994
Decided On : 22-05-2024
For the Appellant : Mr. V.R. Bajwa, Sr. Adv. alongwith Ms. Savita Nathawat.
For the Respondent: Mr. Babu Lal Nasuna, PP.
A conviction cannot be sustained if the accused was not charged under the applicable law at the time of the alleged offense, and if the investigation was conducted improperly.
Headnote:
Corruption - Criminal Appeal - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988; IPC Section 161 - The court quashed the conviction under the new Act due to lack of proper charge framing and illegal investigation.
Fact of the Case:
The accused-appellant was convicted for demanding a bribe for attesting an electricity connection application. The prosecution's case was based on a complaint and subsequent trap, leading to the appellant's arrest.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the investigation was conducted by an officer of insufficient rank without proper authorization, rendering the proceedings illegal and the conviction unsustainable.
Issues: Whether the accused could be convicted under the new Act when charged under the old Act, and whether the investigation was valid given the rank of the investigating officer.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that a conviction under the new Act was improper as the accused was not charged under it, and the investigation was flawed due to the officer's rank and dual role as informant and investigator.
Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and charges against the accused were quashed.
JUDGMENT :
Ganesh Ram Meena, J.
1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the accused-appellant against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 07.02.1994 passed by the Court of learned Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Kota (for short ‘the learned trial court’) in Misc. Criminal Case No.3/1987, whereby, the accused appellant has been sentenced as under:-
U/s. 13(1)(d)(i) read with section 13(2) The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 :
One Year Simple Imprisonment and a fine of Rs.100/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused appellant has to further undergo three months Imprisonment.
U/s. 161 IPC :
One Year Simple Imprisonment.
Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
2. As per the case of the prosecution, complainant Ram Kishan (PW1) submitted a hand written report (Ex.P1) before the Addl. S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Kota (Rajasthan) to the effect that he is resident of Indra Gandhi Nagar, Kota and his agricultural land is situated in Kaithun and for obtaining electricity connection on the application the attestation of Halka Patwari is necessary. It is further mentioned that around 15 days ago when he went to Halka Patwari Patwari of Kaithoon Shri Lal Nagar for attestation of the application, he kept his application with him and told that he will attest the same lateron. He met 2-3 times Shri Lal Nagar Patwari but he did not attest the same and he tried to avoid. On 30.08.1986 (Saturday) at around 4:00 in the evening when he met with Shri Lal, Patwari and requested to attest his application in regard to the land then he made a demand of Rs.120/- as a fee in regard to attestation. He told that Rs.120/- is much more amount and requested to charge less amount but he (Shri Lal, Patwari) refused to charge the less amount. Thereafter, he went at his home. Complainant further mentioned in the report that yesterday i.e. on 01.09.1986 he again met with Shri Lal, Patwari at Patwarghar, Kaithoon and requested him to attest his application and requested him to charge less amount towards fee. Upon this Patwari told him to give Rs.100/- towards fee and he will immediately attest the same. Complainant further mentioned in the report that at that time he was not having the amount, so on 02.09.1986 he agreed for giving Rs.100/-. Complainant further mentioned that there remains no column on the form in regard to the electricity connection. He submitted that he does not want to give Rs.100/- to him as a bribe for attestation of the application and want him to be caught red handed. It has also been mentioned in the report that he has no enmity with the Patwari. After conducting the trap proceedings the accused appellant was arrested.
On the basis of aforesaid hand written report (Ex.P1), an FIR No.166/1986 (Ex.P26) was registered at Police Station Pradhan Aarakshi Kendra, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur, for the offence under section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short ‘the old Act of 1947’).
3. The police after investigation submitted charge-sheet against the accused appellant for the aforesaid offences in the concerned Court.
4. The learned court framed the charges against the accused appellant for the offence under section 161 IPC and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the old Act of 1947. The accused appellant denied the charges and opted for trial.
5. From the prosecution side, the statements of thirteen witnesses were recorded and certain documents were exhibited.
6. The statement of the accused appellant was recorded under section 313 CrPC. The accused appellant in his statement has denied about the allegations levelled against him and deposed that he has been falsely implicated in the instant case. In defence the accused appellant did not produce any witness but exhibited five documents.
7. The learned trial court vide its judgment 07.02.1994 convicted and sentenced the accused appellant for the offences as mentioned above.
8. Mr. V.R. Bajwa,
