Back
1999 Supreme(MP) 694
High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
R. S. GARG
RAM SWAROOP RATHORE - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF M.P. - Respondents
Cri. A. 1570 Of 1997
Decided On : 09/16/1999
M.B.SHRIVASTAV, R.S.PATEL, SURENDRA SINGH
The absence of a valid sanction for prosecution under the Prevention of Corruption Act would not be a ground for reversing the conviction unless the appellate court is of the opinion that a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SANCTION - ABSENCE OF VALID SANCTION - FAILURE OF JUSTICE - DEMAND OF BRIBE - PROOF - RECOVERY OF MONEY - SUFFICIENCY - EVIDENCE - COMPLAINT - SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 700 from the complainant, an engineer of M/s. Adwani Orelicon Ltd. The appellant challenged the conviction on the ground that the sanction for prosecution was not granted by the competent authority and that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court held that the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution would not be a ground for reversing the conviction unless the appellate court was of the opinion that a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned thereby. The court further held that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant, who had made the complaint to the police, was not examined as a witness and the other witnesses' testimonies were not reliable.
Issues: 1. Whether the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution would be a ground for reversing the conviction? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the absence of a valid sanction for prosecution would not be a ground for reversing the conviction unless the appellate court was of the opinion that a failure of justice had in fact been occasioned thereby. The court relied on Section 19(3) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that no finding, sentence, or order passed by a Special Judge shall be reversed or altered by a Court in appeal, confirmation, or revision on the ground of the absence of, or any error, omission, or irregularity in, the sanction required under sub-section (1), unless in the opinion of that Court, a failure of justice has in fact been occasioned thereby. 2. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the demand of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, as the complainant, who had made the complaint to the police, was not examined as a witness and the other witnesses' testimonies were not reliable. The court relied on the Supreme Court's decision in Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Admn.), where it was held that mere recovery of money divorced from the circumstances under which it is paid is not sufficient to convict the accused when the substantive evidence regarding demand is not reliable.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction, and acquitted the appellant of all charges.
( 1 ) THE appellant/accused being aggrieved by the judgment dated 29-7-97 passed in Special Case No. 5/89 by the learned 5th Addl. Sessions Judge/special Judge (C. B. I.), Jabalpur, convicting the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to undergo R. I. for 2 years under each count and pay fine of Rs. 2,500/- under each count, in default of payment of fine to undergo R. I. for 6 months under each count, has filed this appeal.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case in brief is that the accused/appellant Ram Swaroop Rathore who was posted as Chargeman Grade-I in the Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur, with the help and assistance of Vijay Kumar Tiwari made a demand from C. Bhatacharya an engineer of M/s. Adwani Orelicon Limited.
( 3 ) THE accused Ram Swaroop was working as Chargeman Grade-I in the W. I. section of Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. Another accused Vijay Kumar Tiwari (since acquitted) was posted in Examiner section (skilled) and A. M. Section. On 2nd June 1989 the accused V. K. Tiwari went to M/s. Yogesh Trading Company who was dealer of M/s. Adwani Orelicon Ltd. and gave a visiting card and also a written slip containing a message of another accused Ram Swaroop that C. Bhhatacharya should meet the accused Ram Swaroop in Kingsway Bar between 7. 00 to 9. 00 p. m. The said C. Bhhatacharya went to Kingsway Bar at about 7. 20 p. m. where after about 10 minutes accused also came. The accused Ram Swaroop demanded a sum of Rs. 700/- from the said Bhhatacharya for issuing inspection slip. C. Bhhatacharya informed the accused that after discussing the matter with Mr. J. M. Patel, a partner of Yogesh Trading Company, he would inform the accused. On 5-6-89 the said C. Bhattacharya met the accused and agreed to pay the demanded amount of Rs. 700/ -. When the amount was asked for, the said C. Bhhatacharya informed the accused Ram Swaroop that as he was not possessed of the money he would pay it later. The accused Ram Swaroop asked the said C. Bhhatacharya to bring the money near the scooter/cycle stand of Vehicle Factory. The said C. Bhhatacharya gave a written report to the Superintendent of Police C. B. I. inter alia submitting that he was not ready and willing to pay the money and was interested in seeing that the accused was caught. The report Ex. P. 14 was lodged on 5-6-89. After receiving the report. C. B. I. Inspector R. K. Shukla asked the said C. Bhhatacharya to bring a sum of Rs. 700/ -. In presence of PW.-4 K. K. Sareen and PW.-7 Randhir Kumar Sahni the first information report was verified and thereafter the preliminary Panchnama was prepared, after putting the phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes they were given to C. Bhhatacharya with the instructions that after giving the notes to the accused he should scratch his head. Thereafter C. Bhhatacharya, Som Shekhar, K. K. Sareen PW. 4 and PW. 7 Randhir Singh went to gate No. 6 of Vehicle Factory, Jabalpur. The said C. Bhhatacharya met the accused Ram Swaroop and gave him a sum of Rs. 700/ -. After giving the clue as settled the authorities/police pounced upon the accused, caught him on the spot and recovered the money from the possession of the accused. Thereafter the hands of the accused were washed. The said liquid became pink. The number of the notes were compared with the Panchnama and thereafter Panchnama Ex. P. 17 was prepared on the spot which was signed by C. Bhhata-charya, witnesses and the accused R. S. Rathore. After completing the investigation, necessary sanction was obtained and challan was filed before the competent Court.
( 4 ) THE learned trial Court was pleased to frame the charges under Sections 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, read with Section 120-B of the I. P. C. against the present appellant, while against accused V. K. Tiwari charges under Section 13 (1) (d)/13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 120-B, IPC were
