2011 (3) JLJ 225
Rakesh Saksena and M.A. Siddiqui, JJ.
Dwarka Prasas Mishra
Versus
State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.2509 of 1998 (Jabalpur) : against the judgment of Special Judge, passed in Special Case No.67 of 1994;
Decided on 28.9.2011.
Held: On examining the facts and circumstances of the instant case in the light of the above propositions, we find that it was established that appellant immediately after the incident offered explanation to the head of office that he accepted the money towards loan transaction and not by way of illegal gratification for passing medical bill. The appellant reiterated the same defence in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. It also stood corroborated by three receipts which has been brought forward by defence evidence and the complainant handed over Rs.50/- to him by way of instalment of loan, which he was legally entitled to receive. The explanation offered by the appellant appears genuine, reasonable and probable. Learned Special Judge committed error in not accepting the said explanation. In the above circumstances, we are compelled to hold that prosecution failed to establish beyond doubt that appellant received Rs.50/- from the complainant as illegal gratification as a motive or reward for preparation of medical bill.
For the aforesaid reasons the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence of appellant under section of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 passed by learned Special Judge is set aside. Appellant is acquitted. AIR 1974 SC 1516, AIR 1976 SC 1479, AIR 1979 SC 1191, AIR 1979 SC 1408, AIR 2000 SC 3377, (2000)9 SCC 752, (2001)1 SCC 691, AIR 2002 SC 486, AIR 2006
Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7¼1½ rFkk 13¼d½¼2½ && vfHk;qDr vfHkdfFkr fj‘or ysrs gq, ik‘k ny }kjk idM+k x;k && ?kVuk ds rqjar i‘pkr~ dk;kZy; ds iz/kku dks Li"Vhdj.k fn;k && _.k laO;ogkj ds fo"k; esa /ku Lohdkj fd;k u fd fpfdRlk ns;dksa dks ikfjr djus ds fy, && _.k dh fdLr dh jlhnksa ls lk{; laiq"V && Li"Vhdj.k lgh] ;qfDr;qDr rFkk laHkkO; izrhr gksrk gS && voS/k laO;ogkj ds ek/;e ls /ku Lohdkj djuk lkfcr ugha && vfHk;qDr nks"keqDrA vfHkfu/kkZfjr % mi;ZqDr izfriknukvksa ds izdk‘k esa izLrqr ekeys ds rF;ksa rFkk ifjfLFkfr;ksa dh tk¡p djus ij] gekjk fu"d"kZ gS fd ;g LFkkfir Fkk fd vihykFkhZ us ?kVuk ds rqjar i‘pkr~ dk;kZy; ds iz/kku dks ;g Li"Vhdj.k fn;k fd mlus /ku _.k laO;ogkj ds fo"k; esa Lohdkj fd;k u fd fpfdRlk ns;d ikfjr djus ds fy, voS/k ifjrks"k.k ds ek/;e lsA vihykFkhZ us ;gh izfrj{kk naM izfdz;k lafgrk dh /kkjk 313 ds v/khu vius dFku esa nksgjkbZA bldh mu rhu jlknksa }kjk laiqf"V Hkh gqbZ tks izfrj{kk lk{; }kjk izLrqr dh xbZ rFkk ifjoknh us mls _.k dh fdLr ds fy, :- 50@& fn,] ftls izkIr djus ds fy, og oS/k :i ls gdnkj FkkA vihykFkhZ }kjk fn;k x;k Li"Vhdj.k lgh] ;qfDr;qDr rFkk laHkkO; izrhr gksrk gSA fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k us mDr Li"Vhdj.k dks Lohdkj u djus esa xyrh dh gSA mi;ZqDr ifjfLFkfr;ksa esa] ge ;g vfHkfu/kkzfjr djus ds fy, foo‘k gSa fd vfHk;kstu lansg ls ijs ;g LFkkfir djus esa foQy gqvk fd vihykFkhZ us ifjoknh ls fpfdRlk ns;d rS;kj djus ds gsrq ;k iqjLdkj ds :i esa voS/k ifjrks"k.k ds :i esa :- 50 izkIr fd,A iwoksZDr dkj.kksa ls vihykFkhZ dk fo}ku fo‘ks"k U;k;k/kh‘k }kjk Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e dh /kkjk ds v/khu ikfjr nks"kflf) rFkk naMkns‘k dk vkf{kIr fu.kZ; vikLr fd;k tkrk gSA , vkb vkj 1974 ,l lh 1516] , vkb vkj 1976 ,l lh 1479] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1191] , vkb vkj 1979 ,l lh 1408] , vkb vkj 2000 ,l lh 3377] ¼2000½9 ,l lh lh 752] ¼2001½1 ,l lh lh 691] , vkb vkj 2002 ,l lh 486] , vkb vkj 2006 ,l lh 836] ¼2006½11 ,l lh 473 rFkk ¼2006½12 ,l lh lh 277 foosfprA ¼1995½3 ,l lh lh 567 izHksfnrA ¼iSjk 26 ,oa 27½
Siddiqui, J. -- 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment dated 10.10.1998 of Special Judge, in Special Case No.67/ 94 whereby the appellant has been convicted for alleged offence punishable under section 7(1) and section 13(1)(a)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as "the Act") and sentenced to RI for one year and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further undergo RI for four months and RI for two years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further undergo RI for six months respectively.
2. In short, the admitted facts of the case. are that appellant Dwanka Prasad Mishra was a Lower Division Clerk and complainant Ram Milan Sharma (PW3), was Peon, both were posted in the office of Lower Sihaval Canal Division, Churhat District Sidhi. The appellant was also assigned additional charge to look after, preparation and passing of medical bills of department. Complainant presented a medical bill ofRs.389.60 p. which was pending with the appellant-accused for its preparation and passing. Previously also this medical bill was handed over to complainant with some objection and after removal of the objection he again submitted the bill for passing and reimbursement. The bill was to be passed by the then Executive Engineer of the department but necessary preparation and formalities were to be completed byt he appellant-accused. Tainted notes were recovered vide EX.P-4 from the accused and his pant was also seized vide EX.P-5. Medical bill of complainant and Rs.1,250/- were also seized from the house of accused-appellant.
3. In short, the prosecution case are that demand of Rs.50/- was made by accused from the complainant to prepare the Medical bill. The complainant was not willing to give bribe hence he gave an application EX.P-l in writing on 3.6.1987 and requested to do needful to Deputy Superintendent of Special Police Establishment Lok Ayukta Office, Rewa (in short 'police'), who entertained the application and called shri Vijay Singh Parihar (PW6) Investigation Officer and Panch witness R.K. Shrivastava (PW1). They were introduced with complainant, who had given written complaint Ex.P-1. They enquired from complainant and when they satisfied then the raid was organized.
4. Complainant handed over two notes of Rs.20/- and one note of Rs.l0/- in denomination of Rs.50/- and numbers of the notes were noted down on a paper and phenolphthalein powder was applied on the notes by Constable Omkar Prasad Mishra (PW5) and after taking his search that except the tainted money no other amount was there. These tainted money were kept in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. He was strictly warned not to touch notes, before giving the same to the accused-appellant, for which panchnama EX.P-2 was prepared then he was also asked to give the signal to trap party by scratching his head with his left hand. Hands of constable Omkar Prasad Mishra (PW5) were washed with solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink, the liquid was seized. Another sodium carbonate solution was prepared hands of complainant and other members of trap party were washed with it but colour of sodium carbonates solution did not change and it remained white, it was also seized.
5. Trap party started from Rewa to Churhut at about 11 :00 a.m. in Official vehicle with complainant including Investigating Officer Shri Vijay Singh Parihar (PW6), Shri K.L. Mishra. Deputy S.P., Inspector R.R. Mishra witnesses R.K. Shrivastava and other member Sadhu Lal, they reached Churhut at 1:00 p.m. At Churhat near garden behind Higher Secondary School Jeep was stopped. Complainant Ram Milan (PW3) and constable Sadhulal were sent. Both went inside the office of appellant-accused. After sometime they came with appellant-accused out of the office and they took tea in a hotel of Brahaspati Yadav. Meanwhile they were coming back. in the way complainant gave tainted amount to appellant-accused who kept
1. M. W. Mohiuddin v. State of Maharashtra = [(1995)3 SCC 567]
2. Pudukottai T.N. v. A. Parthiban = [(2006)11 SCC 473]
3. B. Noha v. State of Kerala and another = [(2006)12 SCC 277].
4. Surajmal v. State (Delhi Administration) = [AIR 1979 SC 1408]
5. M. Narsingarao v. State of Andhra Pradesh = [(2001) 1 SCC 691]
6. State of Andhra Pradesh v. Kumma Raju Gopal = [(2000)9 SCC 752]
7. Raghubir Singh v. State of Haryana = [AIR 1974 SC 1516]
8. Pannalal Damodar v. State of Maharashtra = [AIR 1979 SC 1191]
9. Smt. Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra = [AIR 2000 SC 3377]
10. Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. State of Gujrat = [AIR 1976 SC 1497]
11. T. Subramanian v. The State of Tamil Nadu = [AIR 2006 SC 836]
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.