Back
MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT AT JABALBUR BENCH
Rakesh Saksena, G.S.Solanki, JJ.
Gokul Prasad Upadhyay, S-o Ramnath Upadhyay, A.S.I.(Assistant Sub Inspector) - Appellant
Versus
State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 530-2005
Decided On : 19-08-2010
Prevention of Corruption Act - False Implication - Section 7 - [Section 7] - The court acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but convicted and sentenced him under Section 7 of the said Act. The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant, leading to the acquittal.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act for allegedly demanding a bribe and beating the complainant. The complainant alleged that the appellant demanded money for exonerating him from false charges.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant, and the evidence presented was unreliable. The court also noted that the complainant's testimony remained unchallenged and acquitted the appellant of the charge.
Issues: The issues revolved around the demand of bribe by the appellant and the reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the lack of evidence to prove the demand of bribe by the appellant and the unreliable nature of the presented evidence.
Final Decision: The appellant was acquitted of the charge under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
G.S. Solanki, J.
1. The appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 28.02.2005, passed by Special Judge (under Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988), Sagar in Special Case No. 6/2002, convicting him under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to RI for 1 year with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default SI for 1 month.
2. It is undisputed that appellant/accused was acquitted of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
3. In short, the prosecution case, is that on 13.06.2001, complainant Tulsiram Lodhi (PW-7) was standing at Jaisi nagar bus stand, for going to Sagar. Constable Sitaram carried him to Police Station Jaisi nagar, on the pretext that there was a warrant against him. Appellant Gokul Prasad Upadhyay (A.S.I.) when asked Sitaram(Constable) that why he brought complainant, Sitaram replied that complainant was running a gaming house. Appellant then beat him and confined him in the lock up, after snatching Rs. 500/- from his person. It is further alleged that Sitaram was released on bail but appellant (Assistant Sub Inspector) demanded further Rs. 500/- as bribe for exonerating him. He did not want to give the bribe therefore, he lodged a written report (Ex. P-6) to the SPE (Lokayukt) Sagar.
4. For the purpose of verifying the demand of bribe, a tape recorder and cassette was provided to complainant Tulsiram Lodhi, for recording the conversation regarding demand of bribe. After recording aforesaid conversation cassette was deposited with police, same was seized vide memo Ex. P-9. Transcript of tape was prepared vide Ex. P-8 in presence of panch witness Ramakant(PW-3).
5. During further investigation a trap was arranged and appellant/ accused was caught red handed. He was arrested. After usual investigation he was charge-sheeted.
6. Appellant/accused abjured his guilt and pleaded that since complainant was running a gaming house, therefore he arrested him. Due to this enmity he falsely implicated him.
7. On appraisal of evidence on record the learned Special Judge acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but convicted and sentenced him under Section 7 of the said Act.
8. Learned Counsel for the appellant submitted that the trial Court erred in not appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. Since tape of conversation regarding demand was not audible before the Court and other evidence regarding demand was not reliable, hence prosecution failed to prove the demand of bribe.
9. On the other hand, learned Counsel for the respondent/SPE justified and supported the finding recorded by the trial Court.
10. We have perused the impugned judgment, evidence and other materials on record.
11. Before the Court complainant Tulsiram(PW-7) himself admitted that appellant had not demanded Rs. 500/- from him. Story narrated in Ex. P-6 regarding demand of Rs. 500/-, therefore becomes suspicious. It is pertinent to note that despite not demanding Rs. 500/- by the appellant, complainant filed report(Ex.P-6) against appellant. In these circumstances, in our opinion, probability of false implication can not be ruled out.
12. PW-7 further deposed that next day he recorded the conversation, in which appellant/accused demanded Rs. 400/- for finishing the case, registered against him. According to him, he deposited recorded cassette in the office of SPE where transcript was prepared vide Ex. P-8. He admitted that during preparation of transcript sound was not understandable. He further admitted in cross examination (para 10) that tape was recorded by some dangerous person and that appellant/accused was sitting far away, during recording.
13. Panch witness Ramakant(PW-3) deposed that during preparation of transcript, sound of tape was not audible and he was unable to identify voice of complainant and appellant.
14. It is true that tape was not played during the examination of w
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the binding effect of the settlement between the parties, the waiver of the right to seek re-employment by the workmen, and the entitlement of the ....
A lockout is justified if it is declared in response to an illegal strike or a strike that is in breach of a settlement or award.
The combination of eyewitness testimonies, recovery of the weapon used, and forensic examination results can establish guilt in criminal cases, even based on circumstantial evidence.
The conviction of an accused person under Section 27(3) of the Arms Act is not permissible in law if the accused is also charged with committing murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.
The court can enhance compensation based on the deceased's income and family dependency, and adjust the multiplier used by the Tribunal if found unjustified.
A valid signature must be in the candidate's own handwriting, as emphasized by the General Clauses Act and relevant case law.
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
