Back
2010 Supreme(MP) 854
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH (GWALIOR BENCH)
A.K. Shrivastava and Brij Kishore Dube, JJ.
Parmanand Soni S/o Shri Jodharam Soni
Vs.
State of M.P. through Lok-Ayukt
Criminal Appeal No. 125/2003
Decided On: 25.11.2010
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss.7, 13(1)( d) and 13(2) -motive of bribe-taking proved -- bribe money proved to be recovered from the appellant -- it was presumed that appellant took bribe -- conviction of appellant affirmed -- appellant would lose his job -- lenient minimum sentence passed.
Held: From the evidence of Constable Ummed Singh (PW7) and Head Constable Bhagvati Prasad (PW5) as well as from the evidence of other members of trap party Ramlakhan Singh Bhadauriya (PW12) and Arvind Khare (PW13), it is proved that bribe money was recovered from the pocket of the trousers of appellant and since there is absolutely no explanation given by the appellant, the statutory presumption as envisaged under section 20 of the Act would come into play and it will be presumed that appellant has taken the bribe. We have already held hereinabove that there was a motive of making demand of bribe by the appellant.
Yet there is another facet of the matter. Certainly, now the appellant would lose his job if already he has not been dismissed from the service, and therefore, we would like to pass some lenient sentence which would not be less to the minimum sentence.
Accordingly, we sentence the appellant for one year RI with a fine of Rs.1,000/- for each offence with a defaulting clause that in case of failure to deposit the fine amount, appellant shall undergo further six months SI. Needless to say, all the sentences shall run concurrently. [Paras 29 & 31]
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7] 13¼1½ ¼?k½ rFkk 13¼2½ && fj‘or ysus dk gsrq lkfcr && fj‘or dk /ku vihykFkhZ ls cjken fd;k tkuk lkfcr && ;g mi/kkj.kk dh xbZ fd vihykFkhZ us fj‘or yh && vihykFkhZ dh nks"kflf) vfHkiq"V && vihykFkhZ viuh ukSdjh x¡ok nsxk && mnkj U;wure naMkns‘k ikfjrA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % dkaLVscy mEesn flag ¼v lk 7½ rFkk gSM dkaVscy Hkxorh izlkn ¼v lk 5½ ds lk{; ls rFkk Vªsi ikVhZ ds vU; lnL;ksa jkey[ku flag HknkSfj;k ¼v lk 12½ rFkk vjfoan [kjs ¼v lk 13½ ds lk{; ls Hkh] ;g lkfcr gksrk gS fd fj‘or dk /ku vihykFkhZ ds iktkes dh tsc ls cjken fd;k x;k rFkk D;ksafd vkR;afrd :i ls vihykFkhZ }kjk dksbZ Li"Vhdj.k ugha fn;k x;k] vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk 20 ds v/khu ;Fkk ifjdfYir dkuwuh mi/kkj.kk ykxw gksxh rFkk ;g mi/kkj.kk dh tk,xh fd vihykFkhZ us fj‘or yh gSA geus ;gk¡ Åij igys&gh vfHkfu/kkZfjr fd;k gS fd vihykFkhZ }kjk fj‘or dh ek¡x fd, tkus dk gsrq FkkA
ekeys dk vU; igyw Hkh gSA fuf‘pr :i ls] vc vihykFkhZ dks igys&gh lsok ls inP;qr ugha fd;k x;k gS rc og viuh ukSdjh x¡ok nsxk] rFkk blfy,] ge dqN mnkj naMkns‘k ikfjr djuk pkgsaxs tks U;wure naMkns‘k ls de ugha gksxkA rnuqlkj] ge vihykFkhZ dks izR;sd vijk/k ds fy, :- 1]000@& ds tqekZus lfgr ,d o"kZ ds dBksj dkjkokl dk naMkns‘k bl O;kfrdkjh [kaM ds lkFk nsrs gSa fd tqekZus dh jde dk fu{ksi djus esa vlQy gksus dh n‘kk esa] vihykFkhZ N% ekl dk vfrfjDr lk/kkj.k dkjkokl HkksxsxkA dgus dh vko‘;drk ugha] lHkh naMkns‘k lkFk&lkFk pysaxsA
¼iSjk 29 ,oa 31½
A.K. Shrivastava, J.
1. Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13th February, 2003 passed by learned Special Judge, Guna, in Special Case No. 1/2002 convicting Appellant under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment as mentioned in the impugned judgment the Appellant has knocked the doors of this Court by preferring this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.
2. In brief the case of prosecution is that complainant Arun Kumar Lakda is the husband of Smt. Phoojensiya Kujur who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Assistant Teacher in Primary School, Khatkiya. The wife of the complainant obtained three months maternity leave and after availing it, joined her duties on 30th April, 2001. It is the further case of prosecution that maternity leave for the months of February and March was sanctioned and the payment of salary was made by the Appellant after obtaining bribe of Rs. 1,000/-, but the payment of maternity leave for the month of April and after joining the duties, the salary of May and June was not paid by the Appellant who at the relevant point of time was serving on the post of Block Education Officer and was also drawing and disbursing officer. The complainant was insisting the Appellant to make the payment, but bluntly it was told by him that he would make the payment of salary for the months of April, May and June, 2001 only when a bribe of Rs. 500/-would be given to him because for sanctioning the payment of maternity leave, he takes bribe at the rate of Rs. 500/-per month and since Rs. 1,000/-has already been paid, an amount of Rs. 500/-be paid and on its payment only, the order of making payment of the salary for the months of April, May and June would be issued. This conversation took place on Friday 17.8.2001 in the chamber of Block Education Officer at Chachoda. The Appellant further directed complainant that on Monday 20th August, 2001, he would not come in the office and would come only on Tuesday and directed to bring the balance amount of bribe on Tuesday. Since the complainant was not keen enough to give any bribe and wanted to get the Appellant caught red handed, with the consent of his wife, he submitted a complaint to the Superintendent of police, Special Police Establishment, Gwalior. The Superintendent of Police directed Inspector Ramlakhan Singh Bhadauria to register the case.
3. On the basis of the report/complaint of the complainant and on the instructions of the Superintendent of Police, Inspector Ramlakhan Singh Bhadauria registered the case at zero number and started the investigation. In order to collect the evidence, the Inspector wrote a letter to Collector, Gwalior, requesting him to depute two Gazetted officers who can be made Panch witnesses. Eventually, the Joint Collector directed Panch witnesses V.K. Bhargava, Assistant Engineer, Water Resources Department, and Dr. Virendra Kumar, Lecturer in Government Ayurvedik Hospital, Gwalior, to remain present at 6 in the morning of 21st August, 2001 in the office of Lokayukta, as a result of which, on this date at 6 a.m. both the Panch witnesses arrived in the said office.
4. The police inspector introduced the complainant to Panch witnesses and thereafter complaint dated 20.8.2001 submitted by the complainant was read over by Panch witness Virendra Sharma in high tone and on hearing its contents, they were affirmed by the complainant. Accordingly, an endorsement on the complaint was made which was signed by the Panch witness Dr. Virendra Kumar Sharma.
5. Thereafter, on submitting five currency notes having denomination of Rs. 100/-each by the complainant, their numbers were noted down in a Panchnama and thereafter Constable Raghunandan Singh was directed to apply phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes who did so. Head Constable Siyaram Shar
