The court emphasized the importance of reliable evidence in corruption cases and upheld the validity of the sanction order after considering the entire case diary and witness statements.

A. K. SHRIVASTAVA, J.

( 1 ) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30-1-1999 passed by Special judge, Gwalior convicting the appellant under Section 161 IPC as well as under section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (in short 'the Act') and sentencing him to suffer R. I. of one year under Section 161 ipc and fine of Rs. 200/ -. He is further convicted under Section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Act for one year RI and fine Rs. 200/-, in default of fine, he has been further directed to suffer RI of two months.

( 2 ) IN brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Kailash Singh bhadoria was serving in the office of Life insurance of the State of Madhya pradesh. He was transferred from Gwalior to Jabalpur in the year 1983. But, his family members were residing in Gwalior in rented house. On 13-12-1986 complainant, came to Gwalior from Jabalpur and in between 17-12-1986 to 22-12-1986 he was on duty at Gwalior. On 19-12-1986, appellant came to his work place of the complainant along with Police Force and brought him to Police Station Morar where he was told that a case under sections 506, 382 and 341 IPC has been registered against him and in case he pays some illegal gratification, he may help to get him bailed out. The complainant agreed and submitted anticipatory bail application on the assurance of the appellant. Thereafter on 24-12-1986, appellant met the complainant at thatipur Chouraha and made a demand of Rs. 100/- from him. Since, he was not having that much of amount with him, he requested appellant that the amount would be paid in the evening at Thatipur chouraha.

( 3 ) THEREAFTER, complainant on the same day i. e. 24-12-1986 submitted an application to the Special Police establishment of Lokayukt that the appellant who is serving on the post of Head constable is making an illegal demand of Rs. 100/- from him and he did not want to give this amount to him. On submitting of the said application, the lokayukta Inspector Shri S. P. Saxena (who later on died) and Dy. S. P. Shri b. M. Bhatia arranged the trap. Necessary requirement before the trap was also completed and as per the plan the complainant gave two currency notes of Rs. 50/- each to the appellant which he kept in the pocket of his shirt. The trap party caught him red handed and washed his hands. The water became pink coloured. The pocket of the shirt which he was wearing was also washed and it also became pink coloured. Necessary panchanama was prepared and a charge sheet was submitted before the Special court.

( 4 ) THE learned Special Judge framed charges under Section 161 IPC as well as under Section 5 (l) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act. Needless to emphasise the appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded complete innocence. His defence is of maladroit implication.

( 5 ) IN order to prove the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and placed Ex. P-l to P-17 the documents on record. Though the defence if of false implication but the appellant did not choose to examine any witness in his defence.

( 6 ) THE trial Court on close scrutiny of the evidence came to hold that the charges are duly proved as a result of which convicted the appellant and sentenced him which I have already mentioned hereinabove. Hence this appeal has been preferred by the accused assailing the judgment of conviction.

( 7 ) SHRI S. A. M. Naqvi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant has contended that the evidence of complainant Kailash Singh Bhadoria (PW-3) is not worth reliable. According to him, there are material contradictions and omissions in his testimony. It has also been putforth by learned counsel that the prosecution examined PW-1, mohanlal Daga and PW-2, Lal Khan in order to prove the Panchanama (Ex. P-1) and the testimony of these two witnesses is not worth reliable. According to learned counsel, Mohanlal Daga has stated that currency note of Rs

Click Here to Read the rest of this document