Back
2013 Supreme(MP) 470
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
Shantanu Kemkar and M.C. Garg, JJ.
Bherulal v. State of M.P.
Criminal Appeal No.1411 of 2001 (Indore) : against the judgment of Special Judge, Ujjain, passed in Special Case No.1 of 2001;
Decided on 26.8.2013.
Milind Phadke for appellant;
Arvind Gokhale for respondent/State.
Headnote:Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 -- S.7 r/w Ss.13(1)(d), 13(2) and 20 -- charge of demand of bribe on Patwari for mutation of land -- caught red-handed by trap party -- powder test positive -- charge proved -- no need of interference in judgment of conviction.
Held : Having considered the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, we find that the same are reliable and trustworthy. The prosecution has been able to prove that the appellant had demanded bribe of Rs.2,000/- for passing the order of mutation of the land in favour of the complainant and his wife, who had purchased the agricultural land vide sale-deeds Ex.P-14 and P-15.
In view of the aforesaid, we find that there is no error in the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court against the appellant.
Hkz”Vkpkj fuokj.k vf/kfu;e] 1988 & /kkjk 7 lgifBr /kkjk 13¼1½¼?k½] 13¼2½ rFkk 20 & iVokjh ij Hkwfe ukekarj.k ds fy, fj’or dh ek¡x dk vkjksi ik’k&ny )kjk jaxs gkFk idM+k x;k & pw.kZ ijh{k.k ldkjkRed & vkjksi lkfcr & nks”kflf) ds fu.kZ; esa gLr{ksi dh vko’;drk ughaA
vfHkfu/kkZfjr % vfHk;kstu lkf{k;ksa ds lk{; ij fopkj djus ds i’pkr~ gekjk fu”d”kZ gS fd os voyacuh; rFkk fo’oluh; gSA vfHk;kstu i{k ;g lkfcr djus esa leFkZ gqvk gS fd vihykFkhZ us ifjoknh rFkk mldh iRuh] ftUgksusa fodz;&foys[k izn’kZ ih&14 rFkk ih&15 )kjk d`f”k Hkwfe dk dz; fd;k Fkk] ds i{k esa Hkwfe ds ukekarj.k dk vkns’k ikfjr djus ds fy, : 2]000@ dh fj’or dh ek¡x dhA
iwoksZDr dks n`f”Vxr j[krs gq,] gekjk fu”d”kZ gS fd fopkj.k U;k;ky; )kjk vihykFkhZ ds fo:) ikfjr nks”kflf) ds vkf{kIr naMkns’k esa dksbZ xyrh ughaA
¼iSjk 10½
Kemkar, J. -- 1. This appeal under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2001 passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988) and 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ujjain in Special Case No.1/2001 convicting the appellant under section 7 read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (for short, the Act) and thereby sentencing him to suffer rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for two years respectively and fine of Rs.1,000/-; in default, further six months rigorous imprisonment.
2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that at the relevant point of time, the appellant was working as a Public Servant on the post of Patwari in Halka No.60, Zhirniya. Village Hatpai Palki was within his territorial jurisdiction. Complainant Biharilal (PW1) purchased agricultural land at village Hatpai Palki, which for being mutated in his and his wife Vimal Kohali’s name, he submitted an application Ex.P-7 with sale-deeds Ex.P-14 and P-15 before the appellant in January, 2000. On 7.4.2000, when he met the appellant at Nagda and inquired about the order on his application for mutation, the appellant informed him that the work is ready but the papers will be handed over to him, if he gives Rs.2,000/- to him. The complainant was not ready to fulfil this demand of illegal gratification of Rs.2,000/-. He, therefore, approached the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain and submitted a written complaint dated 8.4.2000 Ex.P-1 to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta Organization, Ujjain. On receipt of the said complaint, a case was registered against the appellant and was entrusted to Inspector R.L. Bachhne (PW6) for investigation. Letters were sent by the Superintendent of Police to depute gazetted officers for being included in the trap party in the capacity of panch-witnesses. In compliance to the directions, PS Nagresh, Deputy Registrar, Cooperative Societies, Ujjain and N.K. Jain (PW3) Executive Engineer, M.P. Housing Board were deputed. Panch-witnesses were introduced to the complainant and they verified the contents of complaint from the complainant. The panch-witness N.K. Jain read over the complaint in the presence of the complainant. The complainant, after hearing its contents, accepted the contents of it to be true. He also admitted that the complaint to be written by him.
3. Thereafter, two currency notes of denomination Rs.500/- and ten currency notes of denomination Rs.100/-; total Rs.2,000/- given by the complainant, were applied with phenolphthalein powder by Peon Mangilal. Search of the complainant was conducted by Constable Haklai Prasad. Except the clothes nothing was allowed to remain on the body of the complainant. Thereafter, Mangilal Peon kept the currency notes in the left pocket of the shirt of the complainant. He was instructed that he should not come in contact with the treated currency notes prior to handing over the same to the appellant. He was also directed that after handing over the bribe money to the appellant, he will not shake hand with the appellant and after passing over the bribe money to him, he will rub his left hand on his head as a signal to the trap party, to the effect that the transaction of giving bribe money has taken place. Head Constable Vijay Barche prepared two packets of phenolphthalein powder and Mangilal Peon prepared solution of sodium carbonate. By the solution prepared by Vijay Barche hands of both the panch-witnesses and the complainant were washed; colour was not changed. In the other bowl the solution prepared by Peon Mangilal, who had put phenolphthalein powder on the notes rubbed his hands on the currency notes, his hands were washed by that solution, on which the solution turned pink, indicating thereby the physical receipt of the tainted currency by him. This solution was collected in bottle and was sealed.
4. Further necessa
