1996 Supreme(MP) 1040

IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
V.K. Agarwal, J.
Arjun Singh - Appellant
Vs.
State of M.P. - Respondent
Cr. Appeal No. 326 of 1991 (J)
Decided On : 06-06-1996

Headnote:(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 – S. 5(1)(d) r/w 5(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – S.161 – no demand proved – recovery of currency note would not give rise to any presumption – offence not made out.

       (2) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – S.154 – FIR – averment not supported even by complainant – it does not form part of substantive evidence.

        Short Note

       The present appeal is directed against the conviction of the accused/appellant for offences punishable under section 161 of IPC and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentence of 6 months RI and fine of Rs. 100/ – on each count, imposed by judgment dt. 25.3.91 in Special Case No. 8/85 by Special Judge, Jabalpur.

       2. Held: In this case, the complainant Mohan (PW 1) has specifically stated that, the accused/appellant had not made the above demand. According to him, it was the Deputy Ranger and not the accused/appellant, who had demanded the amount and on the asking of Deputy Ranger, he had paid the amount to the accused/appellant. He says that the accused/appellant is not that Deputy Ranger who had made the demand. He has also specifically stated that, the accused/appellant had not made by demand from him. Santosh (PW 3), who is the brother of Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), whose wood was to be carried by the complainant Mohan (PW 1), has also stated that, the complainant Mohan had told Santosh that Deputy Ranger had demanded the amount from him. He has also specifically stated that, the accused/appellant was not the Deputy Ranger, who had demanded the amount. Similar statement is given by Jagdish Prasad (PW 4), who has stated that the complainant Mohan had told him that the Deputy Ranger was making the demand and that the accused/appellant was a Forester and not Deputy Ranger at that time.

       3. In the circumstances, it is clear from the above prosecution evidence itself, that the demand of Rs. 100/ – was never made by the accused/appellant and that the currency note of Rs. 100/ – was paid by the complainant Mohan (PW 1) to the accused/appellant, as directed by the Deputy Ranger. Therefore, mere recovery of a currency note of Rs. 100/ – from the possession of accused/appellant would not give rise to any inference that the accused/appellant had demanded the amount.

       4. In view of the fact that, making of demand by the accused/appellant has been negatived by the statement of complainant Mohan (PW 1) and also from other prosecution evidence, therefore, the offences punishable under section 161 of IPC or section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, cannot be said to be made out against the accused/appellant.

       5. In the circumstances, the FIR (Ex.P – 1) cannot be relied upon, because it cannot form part of substantive evidence and as averments therein are not supported by the complainant himself. In this connection, reference was made to the case of Suresh Kumar Shrivastava v. State of M.P., 1994 JLJ 247. Appeal allowed.