Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 1234
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Rakesh Saksena, M.A.Siddiqui, JJ.
Charanlal son of Nathulal Durve - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh through Police Station Mohkhed, District Chhindwara (M.P.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1841-1999
Decided On : 21-09-2011
For the Appellant:Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate., For the State:Shri S.K.Rai, Government Advocate.
The judgment emphasizes the need for reliable and corroborative evidence, as well as the use of scientific methods in trap proceedings to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt in corruption cases.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act - 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a public servant, was convicted under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded and accepted Rs.500 as a bribe for providing Pavti of agricultural land.
Finding of the Court:
The court found discrepancies and contradictions in the evidence presented by the prosecution witnesses. It noted that the trap proceedings were not conducted using scientific methods, such as phenolphthalein powder, to detect the acceptance of bribe money. The court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish the demand and acceptance of bribe money beyond a reasonable doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the prosecution had proven the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, considering the discrepancies in the evidence and the lack of scientific methods used in the trap proceedings.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the importance of using scientific methods, such as phenolphthalein powder, in trap proceedings to detect the acceptance of bribe money. It also highlighted the need for reliable and corroborative evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Final Decision: The court set aside the judgment of conviction, acquitted the appellant, and discharged his bail bond and surety bond.
Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.:-
Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 07.07.1999 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Chhindwara in Special Case No.4/92 convicting the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- on each count, respectively. Sentences of imprisonment on both counts concurrent.
2. The accusation against the appellant is that on 26.7.1990, he as a public servant being Patwari of village Khunajhirkhurd, demanded and accepted Rs.500/- by way of illegal gratification from complainant Sabba for providing him Pavti of his agricultural land.
3. According to prosecution, M.V.Bhandare, S.D.O. Police, Chhindwara on 26.7.1990 received an application from Joint Collector/Vigilance Officer, Chhindwara namely Manish Shrivastava wherein complainant Sabba had made a written complaint to Collector, Chhindwara that Patwari Charanlal Dhurve was demanding Rs.1000/- for making mutation of his land and giving Pavti in respect to it. According to complainant, about a year back, he had purchased four acres and 26 decimal agricultural land through registered sale deed from Manak Gabli. On the basis of the said registry when he approached to Patwari for obtaining Pavti, he demanded Rs.1000/-. He agreed for the payment of said money in instalments of Rs.500/-. It was agreed that first instalment of Rs.500/- would be paid on 26.7.1990 at his residence. Since he wanted Patwari to be caught taking bribe, he submitted the said application to Collector which was marked to Joint Collector Manish Shrivastava. On the said complaint, Manish Shrivastava, R.S.Thakur, Deputy Collector, M.S. Verma, SDO (P), Chhindwara, Arvind Kumar Shukla and Sopchand planned a trap. They obtained five currency notes of Rs.100/- each from the complainant, M.V.Bhandare and Manish Shrivastava made their initials on the notes and prepared a panchnama recording the numbers of the aforesaid notes. They handed over these notes to complainant and asked him to go with Sopchand to the house of accused and deliver the same to him. He was also instructed to give a signal when the said money was accepted by the accused. Complainant and Sopchand went at the house of accused and other members of the trap party followed them. Complainant went in the house of accused and after two minutes came out and gave prefixed signal to the trap party. Immediately the members of the trap party went in the house of accused and caught him. Accused informed them that the money received by him was kept by him in his polythene bag on the other side of partition of the room. Aforesaid currency notes of Rs.500/- were recovered from the polythene bag and immediately memorandum Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/10 were prepared. Sanshodhan Panji and sale deed were also seized. Numbers of currency notes tallied with the numbers recorded in memorandum.
4. After the trap, report Ex.P/7 was recorded by SDO(P) M.V.Bhandare. The said report was then sent to police station Mohkhed where Crime No.151/1990 under section 3(1&2) was registered. After investigation, sanction for prosecution Ex.P/8 was obtained and the case was put up for trial in the Court of Special Judge.
5. On charges being framed, accused abjured his guilt and pleaded false implication. According to him, he did not accept any money as bribe. He also examined Teekaram (DW-1) in his defence. As per the statement of accused under section 313 Cr.P.C., complainant concocted the story of demand of bribe on the move of Munna @ Arvind Shukla who was inimical to him. The reason for delay in making Pavti was that Teekaram had made objection for the mutation of the name of complainant. Since the competent authority did not allow the amendment of the name, the name of complainant's father was not mutated in the revenue record and no Rin Pustika could be prepared. He examined Teekaram (DW-1) in his defence.
6
