Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT GWALIOR BENCH
Gurpal Singh Ahluwalia, J.
Manmohan Singh Son Of Shri Kashiram Jatav - Appellant
Versus
State Of Madhya Pradesh, Through S.H.O., Special Police Establishment – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2713 of 2021
Decided On : 22-07-2022
The appellant, a Patwari, was convicted and sentenced for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 3,000 from the complainant to expedite the process of partition of agricultural land. The appellant challenged the conviction on various grounds, including the validity of the sanction for prosecution, the reliability of the prosecution witnesses, and the lack of evidence of demand.
Fact of the Case:
The complainant, Yogesh Kushwaha, approached the Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt) alleging that the appellant, Man Mohan Singh Jatav, had demanded a bribe of Rs. 20,000 for preparing a map and expediting the partition of his father's agricultural land. The Lokayukt conducted a trap operation and caught the appellant red-handed while accepting the bribe money. The appellant was arrested and charged with offenses under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the appellant and sentenced him to imprisonment and a fine. The appellant appealed the conviction, arguing that the sanction for prosecution was not obtained in accordance with the law, the prosecution witnesses were unreliable, and there was no evidence of demand for a bribe.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution was obtained in accordance with the law. 2. Whether the prosecution witnesses were reliable. 3. Whether there was evidence of demand for a bribe.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution was obtained in accordance with the law. The court noted that the sanctioning authority had considered the facts of the case and had applied its mind to the issue of whether there was a prima facie case against the appellant. 2. The court held that the prosecution witnesses were reliable. The court noted that the witnesses had given consistent statements and that their testimony was corroborated by other evidence. 3. The court held that there was evidence of demand for a bribe. The court noted that the appellant had been caught red-handed while accepting the bribe money and that he had refused to give a sample of his voice for comparison with the voice recorded during the trap operation.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court.
JUDGMENT :
1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. has been filed against the Judgment and Sentence dated 19-3-2021 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Shivpuri in Special Case No. 06/2016, by which the Appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the following offences :
| Conviction under Section | Sentence |
| Under Section 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 3 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default R.I. for 3 months |
| Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 | 5 years R.I. and fine of Rs. 7,000/- in default R.I. for 4 months |
All sentences shall run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in short is that on 24-12-2014, the complainant made a written complaint to S.P., S.P.E. (Lokyakut), Gwalior on the allegations that his grand mother Binia Bai has died 4 months back, therefore, his father had moved an application for mutation of his name as well as the names of his sisters in the revenue records of land situation in village Kishanpura, area 0.61 hectares. Accordingly, the Appellant, who was working as Patwari had demanded Rs. 20,000/-for preparation of map and has already received Rs. 8,000/-. The Appellant is demanding remaining amount of Rs. 12,000/-from the complainant, but the complainant doesnot want to give bribe and want that the Appellant be caught red handed. Accordingly, investigation was handed over to Inspector Alok Trivedi.
3. After verifying the contents of the complaint, a voice recorder was given to the complainant, vide panchnama Ex. P. 3 and the complainant was sent along with Constable Pramod Singh Tomar. On 27-12-2014, the constable Pramod Singh Tomar, brought the voice recorder in a closed envelop and handed over to Alok Trivedi. It was also informed by Pramod Singh Tomar that on 24-12-2013 he went to Tahsil Narwar along with the complainant, but meeting with Appellant could not take place on 24-12-2014 and 25-12-2014. On 26-12-2014, at about 4 P.M., the complainant had a talk with the Appellant regarding mutation of name of his father in respect of agricultural land and the Appellant had once again demanded Rs. 12,000/-. It was also informed that it has been decided that an amount of Rs. 3,000/-shall be paid to the Appellant on 30-12-2014. Panchnama of receipt of sealed voice recorder was prepared. The voice recorder was kept in an almirah in a safe custody. The complainant was directed to appear in the office on 29-12-2014 at 12 P.M. and a request letter was sent to Collector for appointing Panch witnesses. Accordingly on 29-12-2014, panch witnesses R.P.S. Kushwaha, Anand Prakash Naik, and complainant Yogesh Kushwaha came to the office. The complainant gave another application and accordingly, Alok Trivedi was once again directed to take action.
4. Accordingly, both the applications were got verified from the complainant. The complainant accepted that the contents of the application are true. Accordingly, the panch witness R.P.S. Kushwaha appended his comments and also attested the photograph of the complainant affixed on the complaints. Another Panch witness also approved the same. Thereafter, the sealed voice recorder was opened in the presence of the Panch witnesses and the complainant. The voice recorder containing the conversation and demand of money for partition of agricultural land was played repeatedly and the complainant also verified the same. The complainant also verified that the conversation contains the voice of his father, the Appellant and complainant himself. A transcript of recorded conversation was prepared and certificate under Section 65-B of Evidence Act was issued. Three additional C.D.s of recorded conversation were prepared and were kept separately in sealed cover.
5. Accordingly, on the basis of both the complaints, transcript of recorded conversation, Dehati Na
AI
The prosecution must establish demand and acceptance of illegal gratification beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction under Sec. 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corrup....
Demand for illegal gratification is essential to establish guilt under the Prevention of Corruption Act, and mere recovery of money is insufficient.
The evidence in the record is sufficient to establish the charges for the offences punishable under Section 7 as well as Section 13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Ac....
The need for corroboration of evidence in corruption cases, the importance of a valid sanction, and the requirement to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
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
