Back
2011 Supreme(MP) 1162
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, M.A.Siddiqui, JJ.
Anirudh Kumar Mishra and another - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 602-2000 & From the Judgment and Order dated 28-2-2000 of the Court of Special Judge (PC Act)-I Addl. Sessions Judge. Jabalpur, in Spl. Cri. C. No. 17-1997.
Decided On : 03-08-2011
Mr.S.C.Datt, Sr.Advocate and Mr.Siddharth Datt, Advocate with him for the Appellants, Mr.Aditya Adhikari, Spl.Public Prosecutor for SPE Lokayukta.Result: Criminal Appeal dismissed.
The court emphasized the importance of reliable and consistent evidence in corruption cases, even if witnesses are not entirely independent, and highlighted the significance of establishing the accused's ulterior motive.
Headnote:
Corruption - Public Servant - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2)
Fact of the Case:
Accused, a Naib Tehsildar, was convicted under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for demanding and obtaining illegal gratification of Rs. 1000 from a complainant for mutation of agricultural land and preparation of documents.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the accused guilty based on the evidence of the complainant, corroborated by other witnesses and trap proceedings. The defense's explanation was deemed untruthful, and the accused's ulterior motive was established by withholding case files despite being transferred.
Issues: Reliability of prosecution's evidence, independence of witnesses, and the truthfulness of the accused's explanation.
Ratio Decidendi: The court relied on the firm, consistent, and trustworthy evidence of the prosecution witnesses, even if not entirely independent, and rejected the accused's untruthful explanation and ulterior motive.
Final Decision: The court affirmed the conviction and sentence of the accused under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
As per Rakesh Saksena, J.:-
Accused R.K. Mishra had filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28th February, 2000, passed by Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act)/First Additional Sessions Judge, Jabalpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 17/1997, convicting him under Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) read with Section 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two years with fine of Rs. 5000/-, on each count respectively. Sentence of imprisonment on both the counts were directed to run concurrent.
2. Since during the pendency of appeal accused R.K. Mishra died, by order dated 20-1-2004 and 15-11-2006 his son Anirudh Kumar Mishra and widow Smt. Tara Mishra have been permitted to continue the said appeal.
3. The accusation against accused R.K. Mishra was that on 19-5-1997 he was posted as Naib Tehsildar in Circle No. 2, Jabalpur. While acting as public servant, he demanded and obtained illegal gratification of Rs. 1000/- from complainant Puran Bharti (P.W.3) for mutation of the agricultural land as per orders of the Civil Court and for making new 'Bhu Adhikar Patrika' and 'Rin Pustika' of the said land.
4. In brief, the prosecution case is that the complainant's grand father, viz., Ram Bharti filed a suit in the Court of Civil Judge, Class II, Jabalpur, for partition of his 25 acres of agricultural land comprised in Patwari Halka No. 29 in Village Tevar. This partition was sought on the basis of a compromise in which land was to be partitioned in favour of four persons, viz., Vishwanath Bharti. Jivan Bharti, Kashi Bharti and Ram Bharti himself. The judgment and decree for the said partition was passed by the Civil Court on 22-8-1996. On 3-10-1996 complainant Puran Bharti (P.W.3) filed an application in the Court of R.K. Mishra, Naib Tehsildar, Jabalpur Circle No. 2, for mutation of the names of concerned parties as per the judgment and decree of the Civil Court. He also prayed for preparation of 'Bhu Adhikar Patrika' and 'Rin Pustika'. Since father of complainant, viz., VLshwanath Hharti was employed in Khamariya Factory, he used to go to attend the office of Naib Tehsildar on behalf of his father. R.K. Mishra (accused) demanded Rs. 2000/- from him for mutation in the revenue records and for grant of 'Bhu Adhikar Patrika1' and 'Rin PustiksP (Bahi). Since he did not wish to give bribe to accused, on 16-5-1997 he approached to the office of Special Police Establishment, Lokayukta. Jabalpur, and gave an application (Exh. P-22) to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police Establishment, on the basis of which First Information Report recorded and investigation ensued.
5. For verification of the complaint made by Puran Bharti, Special Police Officials gave him a cassette tape recorder and asked him to get the conversation between him and the accused recorded in respect of the demand of bribe. Complainant recorded the conversion and produced the cassette to Investigating Officer, MBS Jaggi (P.W.10). MBS Jaggi summoned two independent witnesses, viz. Ramesh Chand Jain, Assistant Engineer, Narmada Vikas Division No. 2, Jabalpur and Shri P.D. Nema, Assistant Engineer, M.P. Electricity Security Department, Jabalpur and introduced them to complainant. These witnesses read over the complaint to Puran Bharti and verified the truthfulness of the complaint. A transcript of the tape record was also prepared. Being satisfied about the demand of bribe, Investigating Officer obtained 10 currency notes of Rs. 100- denomination from him and got them initialed from Ramesh Chand Jain (P.W.1). Peon Petram applied Phenolphthalein powder to those currency notes and put them in the pocket of the shirt of complainant. He was instructed to hand over the said currency notes to accused and give a signal to trap party. A demonstration about the reaction of the Phenolphthalein powder with sodium carbonate solution was performed. Witnesses were made to understand that the Phenolphthalein powder ga
