Back
2006 Supreme(MP) 562
S.A. Naqvi, J.
State of M.P. v. K.K. Pandey
Miscellaneous Criminal Case No. 4137 of 2005 (G); Decided on 24.4.2006.*
D.R. Sihare for State; Sunil Jain for respondent.
Headnote:(1) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- Ss. 7, 13 (1) (d) r/w S. 13 (2) -- none of prosecution witnesses supporting case -- no demand of bribe established -- acquittal proper. 1994 CrLJ 1258 and 1998 (1) MPWN 243 relied on. [Para 6
(2) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 154 -- FIR -- is not substantive evidence when averments are not supported by complainant. 1997 (1) MPWN 194 relied on.
[Paras 6 & 7
(3) Criminal P.C., 1973 -- S. 378 (3) -- leave to appeal against acquittal -- no other view than one taken possible -- leave refused. [Paras 7 & 8
¼1½ Hkz"Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 && /kkjk 7] 13¼1½ ¼?k½ lgifBr /kkjk 13 ¼2½ && vfHk;kstu lkf{k;kasa esa ls fdlh us Hkh ekeys dk leFkZu ugha fd;k && fj"or dh ek¡x fl) ugha && nks"keqfDr mfpr gSA 1994 lhvkj ,y ts 1258 rFkk 1998 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 243 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
¼2½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 154 && izFke bfRryk fjiksVZ && tc izdFku ifjoknh }kjk lefFkZr ugha gks] ;g eq[; lk{; ugha gSA 1997 ¼1½ e-iz- ohDyh uksV~l 194 voyafcrA ¼iSjk 6 ,oa 7½
¼3½ naM izfdz;k lafgrk] 1973 && /kkjk 378 ¼3½ && nks"keqfDr ds fo#) vihy dh btktr & fudflZr vU; jk; laHko ugha && btktr ls bUdkj fd;k x;kA ¼iSjk 7 ,oa 8½
1. Non-petitioner KK Pandey retired Executive Engineer and Chief Executive Officer, District Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri has been acquitted under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 12 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by Special Judge, Shivpuri by passing judgment dated 1.7.2005 in Case No.1 of 2004.
2. As per prosecution, non-petitioner KK Pandey on 16., 17.1.2003 was Chief Executive Officer Janpad Panchayat, Kolaras, District Shivpuri and he was a public servant. Village Sesai Khurd falls within Janpad Panchayat Kolaras. Mukesh Bai w/o Shri Bhanupratap Singh was Sarpanch of Village Sesai Khurd. On 16.1.2003 and before that, construction work was going on. Sarpanch of Village Sesai Khurd applied for construction of road to non-petitioner KK Pandey. Accused KK Pandey demanded Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) as illegal gratification from said Mukesh Bai through her husband. Consequently, Bhanupratap Singh filed an application Ex. P-1 before Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Gwalior. Thereafter, all formalities were completed and panchnama was prepared. Ten notes of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each in all Rs. 5,000/- (Rs. five thousand) were treated with phenopthellein powder and they were given to Bhanupratap Singh to deliver accused. After delivering notes, he was directed to give signal to trap party. Trap party was constituted. Bhanupratap Singh went to the office of accused and handed over him ten notes of Rs. 500/- (Rs. five hundred) each. He was caught red handed. Notes were seized from the spot. On washing accused's fingers by sodium carbonate solution, it turned pink. After completing formalities and investigation, charge-sheet under section 7 and section 13 (1) (d) read with section 12 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act has been filed after taking due sanction for prosecution against accused. Charge under above said sections has been framed against accused KK Pandey. He abjured the guilt and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated.
3. After recording evidence and completion of trial, learned trial Court acquitted non-petitioner KK Pandey from the offence levelled against him. Aggrieved by the impugned order, State filed this More under section 378 (3) of CrPC for grant of special leave to appeal.
4. I have heard both the parties at length, perused the impugned judgment and record of the trial Court.
5. It has been argued by learned counsel for the State that learned trial Court committed illegality and perversity in passing impugned judgment. There is sufficient evidence on record to convict non-petitioner KK Pandey. Learned trial Court did not appreciate prosecution evidence and documentary evidence as per law and prayed for to grant special leave to appeal. Learned counsel for the non-petitioner on the other hand supported impugned judgment and prayed for dismissal of MCr case.
6. Bhanupratap Singh (PW 1) and his wife Smt. Mukesh Bai (PW 5) turned hostile. They did not support prosecution case. Both of them deposed that no demand of bribe is made by k.K. Pandey though Bhanupratap Singh admitted his signatures on Ex. P-l to P-5 which are applications given by him to Superintendent of Police, (Lokayukta) and Panchnama prepared pertaining to formalities of the trap. In crossexamination, Bhanupratap Singh deposed that his signatures were taken on plain papers and he never went to Gwalior to complain against KK Pandey and Kolaras Police asked him to sign papers and therefore, he signed those papers. Even Bhagwati Prasad (PW 2), Ummed Singh (PW 3), Ravindra Singh (PW 4), Haridas Shakya (PW 6), J.B.S. Yadav Sub Inspector (PW 7), Khaliq Mohd. (PW 8), Rabhunandan Singh (PW 9), S.C. Meena (PW 11), Kailash Narayan Thengle, Dr. S.M. Tripathi (PW 13) and Hukum Singh Yadav (PW 15) did not support prosecution regarding demand of bribe by non-petitioner KK Pandey. It has been argued by learned counsel for the State that a trap has been arranged and KK Pandey was trapped and Rs. 5,000/- (R
