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
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.
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
Nilesh Dinkar Paradkar Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in 2011(4) SCC 143
N. Sunkanna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2016) 1 SCC 713
B. Jayaraj vs. State of Andhra Pradesh
P. Satyanarayna Murthy vs. The District Inspector of Police and another
C. Chandrasekaraiah Vs. State of Karnataka reported in (2015) 13 SCC 802
Chaitanya Prakash Audichya Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2015) 7 SCC 720
Meena Balwant Hemke v. State of Maharashtra
Panalal Damodar Rathi v. State of Maharashtra
Vinod Kumar Vs. State of Punjab reported in (2015) 3 SCC 220
T. Subramanian v. The State of Tamil Nadu (2006) 1 SCC 401
Madhukar Bhaskarrao Joshi v. State of Maharashtra (2000) 8 SCC 571
Raj Rajendra Singh Seth v. State of Jharkhand and Anr. (2008) 11 SCC 681
State of Maharashtra v. Dnyaneshwar Laxman Rao Wankhede (2009) 3 SCC 779
K. S. Panduranga v. State of Karnataka (2013) 3 SCC 721
Satvir Singh v. State of Delhi (2014) 13 SCC 143
V. Sejappa Vs. State by Police Inspector Lokayukta
Surajmal v. State (Delhi Administration) (1979) 4 SCC 725
C.M. Girish Babu v. CBI (2009) 3 SCC 779
State of Kerala and Anr. v. C.P. Rao (2011) 6 SCC 450
Mukut Bihari and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (2012) 11 SCC 642
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.
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.