Back
2020 Supreme(MP) 1271
High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Shailendra Shukla, J.
ANIL BHASKAR - APPELLANT
Versus
STATE OF M. P. (SPE) LOKAYUKT - RESPONDENT
CRA No. 9930 of 2018
Decided On : 07-02-2020
For Appellant : Vivek Singh
For Respondent: Vaibhav Jain
THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, IS A LEGAL PRESUMPTION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A COMMAND. IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ACCUSED ACCEPTED THE GRATIFICATION AS A MOTIVE OR REWARD FOR DOING OR FORBEARING TO DO ANY OFFICIAL ACT, IF THE CONDITION ENVISAGED IN THE FORMER PART OF THE SECTION IS SATISFIED.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - SECTION 7, 13(1)(D) - EVIDENCE ACT, 1872 - SECTION 114 - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 - REBUTTAL OF PRESUMPTION - LEGAL PRINCIPLES. HELD, THE APPELLANT FAILED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND WAS RIGHTLY CONVICTED.
Fact of the Case:
THE APPELLANT, AN EMPLOYEE OF THE SOCIAL JUSTICE DEPARTMENT, WAS CAUGHT RED-HANDED WHILE ACCEPTING A BRIBE OF RS. 1500/- FROM THE COMPLAINANT FOR RELEASING FUNDS UNDER THE NATIONAL FAMILY BENEFIT SCHEME. THE APPELLANT WAS TRAPPED BY A TEAM OF LOKAYUKTA POLICE WHO HAD BEEN INFORMED BY THE COMPLAINANT ABOUT THE DEMAND FOR BRIBE. THE APPELLANT'S HANDS WERE TREATED WITH PHENOLPHTHALEIN POWDER AND HE WAS GIVEN TWO NOTES OF RS. 500/- DENOMINATION AND FIVE NOTES OF RS. 100/- DENOMINATION. THE APPELLANT KEPT THE MONEY IN HIS RIGHT HAND POCKET. WHEN THE TRAP TEAM ENTERED THE OFFICE, THE APPELLANT WAS FOUND SITTING IN HIS CHAIR WITH THE MONEY IN HIS POCKET. THE APPELLANT'S HANDS WERE DIPPED IN SODIUM BICARBONATE SOLUTION, WHICH TURNED PINK, CONFIRMING THE PRESENCE OF PHENOLPHTHALEIN POWDER. THE MONEY WAS RECOVERED FROM THE APPELLANT'S POCKET AND THE APPELLANT'S TROUSER POCKET WAS ALSO DIPPED IN SODIUM BICARBONATE SOLUTION, WHICH TURNED PINK. THE APPELLANT WAS CHARGED UNDER SECTIONS 7 AND 13(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 13(2) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988 AND WAS CONVICTED AND SENTENCED TO 4 YEARS OF RIGOROUS IMPRISONMENT WITH A FINE OF RS. 2000/-.
Finding of the Court:
THE COURT FOUND THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED A BRIBE OF RS. 1500/- FROM THE COMPLAINANT. THE COURT ALSO FOUND THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED THE BRIBE AS A MOTIVE OR REWARD FOR DOING OR FORBEARING TO DO ANY OFFICIAL ACT.
Issues: 1. WHETHER THE PROSECUTION HAD PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED A BRIBE OF RS. 1500/- FROM THE COMPLAINANT? 2. WHETHER THE APPELLANT HAD REBUTTED THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED THE BRIBE AS A MOTIVE OR REWARD FOR DOING OR FORBEARING TO DO ANY OFFICIAL ACT?
Ratio Decidendi: THE COURT HELD THAT THE PROSECUTION HAD PROVED BEYOND REASONABLE DOUBT THAT THE APPELLANT HAD DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED A BRIBE OF RS. 1500/- FROM THE COMPLAINANT. THE COURT ALSO HELD THAT THE APPELLANT HAD FAILED TO REBUT THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, THAT HE HAD ACCEPTED THE BRIBE AS A MOTIVE OR REWARD FOR DOING OR FORBEARING TO DO ANY OFFICIAL ACT. THE COURT RELIED ON THE FOLLOWING LEGAL PRINCIPLES: 1. THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, IS A LEGAL PRESUMPTION WHICH IS IN THE NATURE OF A COMMAND. IT IS TO BE PRESUMED THAT THE ACCUSED ACCEPTED THE GRATIFICATION AS A MOTIVE OR REWARD FOR DOING OR FORBEARING TO DO ANY OFFICIAL ACT, IF THE CONDITION ENVISAGED IN THE FORMER PART OF THE SECTION IS SATISFIED. 2. THE ONLY CONDITION FOR DRAWING SUCH A LEGAL PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20 IS THAT DURING TRIAL IT SHOULD BE PROVED THAT THE ACCUSED HAS ACCEPTED OR AGREED TO ACCEPT ANY GRATIFICATION. 3. THE PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 20(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1988, IS NOT AN INVIOLABLE ONE, AS THE APPELLANT COULD REBUT IT EITHER THROUGH CROSS-EXAMINATION OF THE WITNESSES CITED AGAINST HIM OR BY ADDUCING RELIABLE EVIDENCE.
Final Decision: THE COURT DISMISSED THE APPEAL AND AFFIRMED THE CONVICTION AND SENTENCE IMPOSED ON THE APPELLANT BY THE SPECIAL COURT.
ORDER : – This appeal under section 374 of Criminal Procedure Code, has been preferred against the judgment dated 26-12-2018, passed by the Special Judge (P.C. Act) Ujjain in Special Case No. 16/2017, whereby the charges framed against the appellant under the provisions of sections 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (herein after referred as ‘the P.C. Act’) has been found to be proved and the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 4 years of RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI and in respect of the charges framed under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act the appellant has been sentenced to undergo 4 years RI with fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine 2 months additional RI. Both sentences would run concurrently.
2. The prosecution story in short was that on 19-5-2014, complainant namely Jitendra Kothar has lodged a complaint with Lokayukt police alleging that appellant working as was asked bribe of Rs. 2000/- for releasing the funds to the mother of the complainant under National Family Benefit Scheme. On receiving such complaint, Inspector Special Police Lokayukt formed a team who would act as witnesses in respect of the demand of acceptance of bribe by the appellant. As per the instructions, the complaint pertaining to the demand of bribe was verified by the team and this was done by providing the complainant a voice recorder and he was again sent to the office of the appellant along with one constable namely Ashish Chandel. The complainant went inside the office of the appellant alone and recorded the conversation. This voice recorder was then handed over to Basant Shrivastava, the I.O. A panchnama was prepared and crime No. 0/34/2014 under section 7 of the P.C. Act was registered. Thereafter FIR was also lodged. The complainant was asked to provide Rs. 1500/-. The complainant provided two notes of Rs. 500/- denomination each and 5 notes of Rs. 100/- denomination each. A slip was prepared containing particulars of each currency note by panch witness Manoj Hinge. TLO Shri Basant Shrivastava then arranged for smearing phenolphthalein powder on these notes. These notes were kept in the right pocket of trouser worn by complainant. His hands were washed in sodium carbonate solution which did not turn pink. Subsequently, on 19-5-2014 by around 4.30 PM the team constituted by Lokayukt Police left for Jila Panchayat Damdama, Ujjain. On reaching the spot, the complainant went to the Social Justice Department and after sometime complainant alerted the team as per pre-determined signal showing that he has given the bribe. On receiving such signal raiding party constituted by the police went inside the office and trapped the appellant. His hands were held from above wrist by team members namely Ashish Chandel and Rakesh Bihari. His hands were dipped in sodium carbonate solution resulting in solution turning pink. This showed that he had received the money. Further search by Panch witness Manoj Kumar Hinge led to recovery of currency notes from the pocket of the appellant. These were pre-marked currency notes and thus, it was verified that bribe amount had been received. The trouser worn by the appellant was also seized and its right pocket was dipped in sodium carbonate solution which again turned pink. The appellant was charge-sheeted under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the P.C. Act. Charges under aforesaid sections were read over to the appellant who abjured his guilt. The trial Court thereafter proceeded to examine the witnesses. Prosecution examined 8 witnesses in all. The defence taken by the appellant was that he had no work relating to the appellant’s mother pending with him and all the bills pertaining to Social Justice Department were already deposited by him on 26-3-2014, i.e., much before the incident of bribe taking has shown to have taken place. The appellant examined one witness in his support. The trial Court as al
