SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2018 Supreme(MP) 173

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT INDORE
S.C. SHARMA, J.
R. S. Ashatkar - Appellant
Versus
Central Bureau of Investigation, Bhopal - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1004 of 2010
Decided On : 15-03-2018

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Shri Surendra Singh, learned Senior Counsel with Shri Ashish Gupta, learned counsel.
For the Respondent: Shri D. S. Chawla with Shri Deepak Rawal, learned counsel.

The demand of illegal gratification is essential for constituting an offense under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and the burden of proving the defense shifts upon the accused when the prosecution successfully establishes the demand and acceptance of illegal gratification.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Jurisdiction - Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 - Sections 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) - [Section 7, Section 13(2), Section 13(1)(d)]

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a Land Acquisition Officer, demanded a bribe of Rs.40,000 for the payment of compensation to the landowners. The Central Bureau of Investigation conducted a trap operation and recovered the bribe money from the appellant's drawer.

Finding of the Court:

The court found the appellant guilty of demanding and accepting a bribe, as evidenced by witness testimonies, trap operation, and forensic evidence.

Issues: Jurisdiction of the Central Bureau of Investigation and admissibility of evidence.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the Central Bureau of Investigation had jurisdiction to investigate the offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The court also ruled that the evidence of demand and acceptance of the bribe, supported by witness testimonies and forensic evidence, was admissible.

Final Decision: The court confirmed the appellant's conviction under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and dismissed the appeal.

ORDER :

1. The present criminal appeal is arising out of judgment dated 11/08/2010 passed in Special Case No.02/2009 convicting the appellant under Section 7 and 13(2) read with Section 13(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and he has been sentenced to undergo one year and two years rigorous imprisonment respectively and to pay fine of Rs.3,000/-on each count and in default of payment of fine to further under go three months rigorous imprisonment respectively (totaling to six months).

2. The facts of the case reveal that the complainant Kunj Bihari Patel and his brother Bal Krishna were the permanent residence of Village Bhamar, Tehsil Kannod, District Dewas and they were owner of agricultural land. The agricultural land came under submergence / was acquired for a project known as “Indira Sagar Project” and a dam has been constructed over the river Narmada. The house as well as land of the family was acquired and compensation to the tune of Rs.9,44,139/-was assessed for the house and for the land a sum of Rs.1,25,862/-was assessed.

3. As per prosecution case both the brother Kunj Bihari and Bal Krishna were to be paid compensation and Bal Krishna met the present appellant on 05/07/2008 and the appellant in turn has demanded a sum of Rs.40,000/-for making the payment of compensation to the land owners / complainant. Kunj Bihari lodged a report on 14/07/2008 with the Superintendent of Police and Central Bureau of Investigation and on the next date i.e. on 15/07/2008 a telephonic conversation took place between the Kunj Bihari and the accused in front of witnesses.

4. A Panchnama was prepared accordingly and CR was registered at CR No.9A/08. The Central Bureau of Investigation constituted a trap team including Atul Hajela, D. S. Sengar, Mukesh Tiwari (all Inspector), Arjun Kadam and Zaheer Ansari (both Sub Inspector) as well as other employees. A pre-trap drill was carried out and Kunj Bihari and Bal Krishna were present and they were given Rs.20,000/-which were coated with phenolphthalein powder. A trap memo was prepared and numbers of currency notes were noted down.

5. Kunj Bihari, Bal Krishna and H. R. Chavhan were sent to the room of appellant and other witnesses were waiting for a signal to be given by Kunj Bihar and Bal Krishna. Inside the room, there was a table and two chairs and Kunj Bihari handed over Rs.20,000/-to the appellant. The appellant received the money and kept the money in the drawer and at that point of time signal was given by H. R. Chavhan and the entire team came inside. The Central Bureau of Investigation team recovered an amount of Rs.20,000/-from the drawer. The hands of the appellant were washed with the water and the water containing sodium carbonate turned pink. Samples were collected from the drawer and a Panchnama was prepared. Thereafter, a charge sheet was filed, charges were framed and the trial Court based upon the evidence adduced during the trial has convicted the appellant.

6. Learned senior counsel Shri Surendra Singh along with Shri Ashish Gupta has vehemently argued before this Court that as per the statutory provisions governing the field as contained under the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946, the Central Bureau of Investigation was not having jurisdiction in respect of investigation of the crime in question as no consent was in existence to exercise powers and jurisdiction in a State of Madhya Pradesh. As the issue relating to jurisdiction has been argued at the initial stage, the same requires an answer at the threshold.

7. Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 is an Act which empowers Central Bureau of Investigation to investigate the offences which the Central Government by notification specify in the official gazette. The Government of India in exercise of power conferred under Section 3 of the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act, 1946 has issued a notification on 07/09/1989 including the offences under Indian Penal Code, 1860 at item 'A' and at item 'B

















































































Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top