C A V Judgment

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.09.2004 passed by the learned Special Judge-cum-First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G) in Special Sessions Trial No 18 of 2002 whereby the accused-appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :

Digitally A signed by ANNAJEE A RAO ANNAJEE RAO

2.1 The appellant was working as Panchayat Secretary in village Sankari Police Station Kurud, Dist : Dhamtari (C.G). Complainant Chhabia Bai who is resident of village Sakri made a written complaint on 04.06.2002 to the office of Lokayukt Raipur stating therein that she made an application to obtain pension under the Scheme known as “Rashtriya Sahayta Parivar Pension Yojna” the appellant rejected her application and later on he demanded Rs.2000/- as bribe to get her the said pension from Panchayat. The work was settled to be done at Rs.1000/- instead of Rs.2000/-. The appellant asked the complainant to pay Rs.500/- as first instalment on 06.06.2002.

2.2 The complainant was not inclined to offer bribe to him, therefore, she made a complaint against him before the Lokayukt Raipur who on 04.06.2002 gave her a micro cassette tape and asked her to record the conversion regarding demand of bribe between appellant and herself. The complainant submitted the micro cassette tape on 05.06.2002, which was converted into script and an offence u/s 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act (for short PC Act) has been registered.

2.3 . Thereafter, a trap team was constituted and the complainant was given 5 currency notes of Rs.100/- each which were sprayed with Phenolphthalein powder. It is said that the appellant on 06.06.2002 came to the house of complainant and he took the bribe amount of Rs.500/- from her. The trap team reached to the spot and nabbed the appellant red-handed. The hands of the appellant got washed with the solution of sodium carbonate, which turned into pink colour. The investigation was carried out and charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge, Raipur.

3. To bring home the offence, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statement of the appellant was also recorded in which he denied the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication. On completion of trial and after evaluating the evidence and documents placed on record, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence the instant appeal.

4(i). Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that there was enmity between the complainant party and accused party in the village and the complainant was selling illicit liquor in the village which was being supported by one of the members of Gram Panchayat namely Bishan. Since the said act was objected by appellant’s father who was a village Kotwar as also by Sarpanch Ramkhilawan (P.W.3) by filing complaint against her for selling illicit liquor, therefore, in order to take revenge, complainant Chhabiya Bai (P.W.1) with the connivance of Bishan has falsely implicated the appellant.

4(ii) He further submitted that presumption under section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be drawn unless the demand of illegal gratification is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Referring to paras 7 to 14 of the impugned judgment, he contended that the learned trial Court has categorically held that prosecution has failed to prove the demand of illegal gratification. He further referred to paras 15 to 23 and contended that the trial Court though has held that the prosecution has failed to establish demand but it has proved the acceptance of gra