Back
2007(1) JLJ 1
(SUPREME COURT)
S.B. Sinha and Dalveer Bhandari, JJ.
State of M.P. v. Shambhudayal Nagar
Criminal Appeal No. 261 of 2004: against the judgment of
M.P. High Court (Gwalior) passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1999,
reported in 2004(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 226; Decided on 2.11.2006.
According to the version of the prosecution, on 9.8.1996 complainant Badansingh‘s sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Bitholadevi, a resident of village Tukera, was beaten by Jagmohan, Mahavir, etc. who belonged to the same village. A report of the said incident was made by Bitholadevi at the Police Station Malanpur. The investigation of this matter was entrusted to the respondent Shambhudayal, Assistant Sub-Inspector. Consequently, he went to the village Tukera at the house of complainant Badansingh and told him that the opposite party, i.e., Mahavir, etc. had filed a report against them and in that connection, the rifle of the complainant and Mouser rifle of Ram Prakash, brother of the complainant would be seized and both the complainant and his brother would also be arrested. The respondent asked the complainant Badansingh that in case Rs.5,000/- was paid to him, he would neither seize the rifles nor arrest them and rather the opposite party‘s persons will be arrested and sent to jail immediately.
On 21.8.1996, Badansingh, the complainant told the respondent Shambhudayal that he would not be able to arrange Rs.5,000/- and he requested the respondent to settle the amount at Rs. 3,500/-. The respondent agreed to accept Rs.3,500/- (bribe money) on the condition that the said amount had to be arranged by the same evening. The complainant was not ready to give the bribe to the respondent and wanted to get the respondent nabbed. Therefore, on 21.8.1996, he went to the office of Shri Pradeep Runwal, Superintendent of Police, Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior, with cash of Rs.3,500/- and submitted a written application (Exhibit P-l) on the above mentioned subject. [Paras 2.2 & 2.3
At about 7 p.m., the respondent came to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar in his uniform on a motorcycle and spoke to the complainant while sitting inside Vijay Mishthan Bhandar and when the respondent demanded the amount of bribe, the complainant gave Rs.3,500/- after taking out the same from his pocket and the respondent kept the same in the right pocket of his uniform‘s Shirt. [Para 2.7
Held: Where the recovery of money coupled with other circumstances lead to the conclusion that the respondent received gratification from some person, the Court would certainly draw a presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, In the instant case, the recovery of 35 notes of the denomination of 100 is fully proved by Badansingh PW 1 and two other independent witnesses Aditya Choubey PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma PW11.
On consideration of the totality of the circumstances of this case, the prosecution has been able to establish on the basis of evidence on record that the respondent had received bribe and, therefore, he is guilty of the offence under section 7 and 13(1)( d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention Corruption Act, 1988. 1980(2) SCR 1053 relied on. 2004(1) Vidhi Bhasvar 226 reversed. [Paras 15 & 16
(2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 7, 13(1) (d) r/w S.13 (2) -- offence proved -- lenient view of sentence cannot be taken -- corruption by public servant has become a gigantic problem. JT 1997(4) SC 158 relied on. [Para 14
¼1½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7] 13¼1½ ¼?k½ lgifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ rFkk 4¼1½ && lk{; vkSj vfHkfyf[kr nLRkkostksa ls ekeyk izR;FkhZ ds fo#) iw.kZr% lkfcr && mPp U;k;ky; }kjk fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k dh Hkyh&Hkk¡fr lqfoosfpr fu.kZ; xyr vikLRk fd;k x;k && ifjfLFkfr;k¡ ifjrks"k.k izkIr fd, tkus ds fu"d"kZ dh vksj ys tkus okyh && /kkjk 4¼1½ ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk dh tk ldrh gSA vfHk;kstu ds o`Ùkkar ds vuqlkj 9-8-1996 dks xzke Vqdsjk fuoklh ifjoknh cnuflag dh HkkHkh fcBksykoknh dh txeksgu] egkohj vkfn us] tks mlh xzke ds Fks] fiVkbZ dhA fcBksyknsoh }kjk mDr ?kVuk dh fjiksVZ ekyuiqj iqfyl Fkkus esa dh xbZA bl ekeys dk vUos"k.k izR;FkhZ ‘kaHkqn;ky] lgk;d mifujh{kd dks lkSaik x;kA ifj.kkeLo:i] og xzke Vqdsjk esa ifjoknh cnuflag ds ?kj igq¡pk vkSj mlls dgk fd fojks/kh i{k vFkkZr~ egkokh vkfn muds fo#) fjiksVZ Qkby dh gS vkSj ml laca/k esa ifjoknh dh jkbQy vkSj ifjoknh ds HkkbZ jkeizdk‘k dh ekmtj jkbQy vfHkx`ghr dh tk,xh rFkk ifjoknh vkSj mldk HkkbZ fxj¶rkj fd;k tk,xkA izR;FkhZ us ifjoknh cnuflag ls dgk fd ;fn #- 5]000@& mls lanÙk dj fn, tk,¡] og u rks vfHkx`ghr djsxk vkSj u mUgsa fxj¶rkj djsxk] myVs fojks/kh i{k ds O;fDr rRdky fxj¶rkj fd, tk,¡xs vkSj tsy Hkst fn, tk,¡xsA 21-8-1998 dks ifjoknh cnuflag us izR;FkhZ ‘kaHkqn;ky ls dgk fd og #- 5]000@& dh O;oLFkk ugha dj ldsxk vkSj mlus izR;FkhZ ls #- 3]500@& r; djus dh izkFkZuk dhA izR;FkhZ #- 3]500@& ¼?kwl /ku½ Lohdkj djus ds fy, bl ‘krZ ij jkth gks x;k fd mDr jde dh O;oLFkk mlh ‘kke rd dj nh tk,A ifjoknh] izR;FkhZ dks ?kwl nsus ds fy, rS;kj ugha Fkk rFkk izR;FkhZ dks idM+okuk pkgrk Fkk] blfy,] og 21-8-1996 dks Jh iznhi :uoky] iqfyl v/kh{kd] yksd vk;qDr dk;kZy;] Xokfy;j #- 3]500@& uxn ys dj x;k vkSj mi;qZDr fo"k; esa fyf[kr vkosnu izn‘kZ ¼ih&1½ izLrqr fd;kA ¿iSjk 2-2 ,oa 2-3À yxHkx 7 cts vijkg~u izR;FkhZ viuh ;qfuQkeZ esa eksVj lkbfdy ij fot; fe"BkHkaMkj ij vk;k vkSj fot; fe"BkUu HkaMkj esa cSB dj ifjoknh ls ckrphr dh vkSj tc izR;FkhZ us ?kwl dh ek¡x dh] ifjoknh us viuh tsc ls fudky dj #- 3]500@& fn, vkSj izR;FkhZ us og viuh ;wfuQkeZ dh deht dh nkfguh tsc esa j[k fy,A ¿iSjk 2-7À vfHkfu/kkZfjr % tc vU; ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds lkFk /ku dh cjkenxh ls ;g fu"d"kZ gS fd izR;FkhZ us fdlh O;fDr ls ifjrks"k.k izkIr fd;k gS] fuf‘pr gh U;k;ky; }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 4¼1½ ds v/khu mi/kkj.kk dh tkuk pkfg,A izLrqr ekeys esa 100 ls 35 uksV dh cjkenxh cnuflag v lk 1 rFkk nks vU; Loar= lk{khx.k vkfnR; pkScs v lk 6 vkSj lqjsnj jk; ‘kekZ v lk 11 }kjk iw.kZr% lkfcr dh xbZ gSA bl ekeys dh ifjfLFkfr;ksa ds lkdY; ij fopkj fd, tkus ij] vfHkys[kxr lk{; ds vk/kkj ij vfHk;kstu ;g lkfcr dj ldk gS fd izR;FkhZ us ?kwl izkIr dh Fkh vkSj blfy, og Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 dh /kkjk 13¼2½ ds lkFk ifBr /kkjk 7 rFkk 13¼1½¼?k½ ds v/khu vijk/k dk nks"kh gSA 1980¼2½ , lh vkj 1053 voyafcrA 2004 ¼1½ fof/k HkkLoj 226 myVk x;kA ¿iSjk 15 ,oa 16À ¼2½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7] 13¼1½ ¼?k½ lgifBr /kkjk 13¼2½ && vijk/k lkfcr && naMkns‘k dk ln; vfHkxe ugha viuk;k tk ldrk && yksd lsod }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj vfrfo‘kky leL;k cu xbZ gSA ts Vh 1997 ¼4½ ,l lh 158 voyafcrA ¿iSjk 14À
Bhandari, J.1. This appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh against the judgment of the High Court of Judicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at Gwalior, dated 30.1.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2 of 1999.
2. The brief facts of this appeal, which are necessary to dispose of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as follows.
2.1 The respondent Shambhudayal Nagar, who was posted atthe Police Station, Malanpur on the post of Assistant Sub-Inspector, was convicted under section 7 and 13(1)( d) read with section 13( 1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
2.2 According to the version of the prosecution, on 9.8.1996 cO'plainant Badansingh's sister-in-law (Bhabhi) Bitholadevi, a resident of village Tukera, was beaten by Jagmohan, Mahavir etc. who belonged to the same village. A report of the said incident was made by Bit holadevi at the Police Station Malanpur. The investigation of this matter was entrusted to the respondent Shambhudayal) Assistant Sub-Inspector. Consequently, he went to the village Tukera at the house of complainant Badansingh and told him that the opposite party, i.e., Mahavir, etc. had filed a report against them and in that connection, the rifle of the complainant and Mouser rifle of Ram Prakash, brother of the complainant would be seized and both the complainant and his brother would also be arrested. The respondent asked the complainant Badansingh that in case Rs.5,000/- was ,paid to him, he would neither seize the rifles nor arrest them and rather the opposite party's persons will be arrested and sent to jail immediately.
2.3 On 21.8.1996, Badansingh, the complainant told the respondent Shambhudayal that he would not be able to arrange Rs.5,000/- and he requested the respondent to settle the amount at Rs. 3,500/-. The respondent agreed to accept Rs.3,500/- (bribe money) on the condition that the said amount had to be arranged by the same evening. The complainant was not ready to give the bribe to the respondent and wanted to get the respondent nabbed. Therefore, on 21.8.1996, he went to the office of Shri Pradeep Runwal, Superintendent of Police, Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior, with cash of Rs.3,500/- and submitted a written application (Exhibit P-1) on the above mentioned subject.
2.4 The Superintendent of Police directed his subordinates to lay a trap for nabbing the respondent while accepting the bribe. For this purpose, Aditya Chobey, the then Manager, Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior, was called with a vehicle. On 21.8.1996, after the arrival of the above named panch witness Aditya Choubey PW6 and another panch witness Srikrishan Chauhan PW3 at the Special Police Station (Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior), the formal application made by the. complainant Badansingh was given to Aditya, Choubey. The application was read over to Badansingh. On the said application, Aditya Chobey gave his remarks and confirmed the contents and submission of the application by the complainant and appended his signatures. Thereafter, the complainant gave 35 currericy notes of the denomination of Rs.100/-for giving them as a bribe to the respondent. The numbers of all these currency notes were recorded. Inspector Surender Rai Sharma PW11, of the abovementioned establishment got a thin layer of phenolphthalein powder smeared on both sides of these notes by Ram Roop Singh Ojha, Sub-Inspector. The Head Constable searched Badansingh PW1 and Surender Rai Sharma PW11 and nothing was left in his pocket. The currency notes smeared with phenolphthalein powder, were kept in the right side pocket of the pant worn by Badansingh and it was explained to him not to touch these notes before giving to the respondent. Badansingh was given instructions not to shake hands with the respondent before and after giving those currency notes to him. The complainant, after reaching Vijay Mishthan Bhandar, asked Srikrishan Chauhan PW3 to proceed and request the respondent to come at the appointed place,
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
