Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(MP) 857
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
SHRI JUSTICE SUBODH ABHYANKAR, J
Bharatlal – Appellant
Versus
State Of M.P. – Respondent
CRA 1015/2007
Mi.Qureshi,Zishan Ali/,Spl. Prosecutor Lokayukta
The court affirmed that a presumption of guilt arises under the Prevention of Corruption Act when an accused is caught red-handed, and the burden lies on the accused to rebut this presumption.
Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 - Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) - Criminal appeal against conviction and sentence for bribery - Appellant convicted for accepting bribe of Rs.2,000/- for issuing Fard Batwara - Conviction upheld as evidence established demand and acceptance of bribe. (Paras 2, 3, 27)
(B) Burden of Proof - Presumption of guilt arises under Section 20 of the Act of 1988 when caught red-handed - Appellant failed to rebut presumption with credible evidence. (Paras 11, 27)
(C) Evidence - Transcript of conversation and panchnama were properly prepared and admitted - No substantial evidence to support appellant's defense of sale of chana. (Paras 18, 26)
Facts of the case:
The appellant, a Patwari, was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of Rs.2,000/- for issuing a Fard Batwara. The complainant had reported the demand to the authorities, leading to a trap. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court:
The prosecution proved the demand and acceptance of bribe beyond reasonable doubt, and the defense was found lacking in credible evidence. (Paras 27)
Issues: Whether the evidence presented was sufficient to uphold the conviction and whether the appellant's defense was credible. (Paras 27)
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe was compelling, and the appellant's failure to provide credible evidence to support his defense led to the upholding of the conviction. (Paras 27)
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
1] Heard finally, with the consent of the parties.
2] This criminal appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 22.08.2007, passed in Special Case No.1 of 2005 by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Ratlam (MP) whereby, while finding the appellant guilty under Section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13 (2) of The Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (hereinafter referred to as „the Act of 1988‟), has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:-
- Conviction Sentence Section Imprisonment Fine In default of payment of fine 7 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 1 year R.I. Rs.1,000/- 1 month R.I. 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 2 years R.I. Rs.2,000/- 2 months R.I. Both the sentences to run concurrently.
3] In brief, the facts of the case are that the appellant Bharatlal, who was posted as Patwari Halka No.4, Village Panched, Tehsil and District Ratlam, caught red handed with Rs.2,000/- which he took as a bribe for issuance of Fard Batwara to the complainant.
4] According to the case of the prosecution, on 29.04.2004, the complainant Mohanlal Balsora (PW-3) informed the S.P. Lokayukt, Ujjain that the appellant Bharatlal who was posted as Patwari is demanding a sum of Rs.2,000/- to issue Fard Batwara, to which, he was asked to lodge a report in writing, and on that day only, two independent witnesses namely Dhruv Bhargava and K.C. Sanghi, both Assistant Engineers, Water Resource Department were asked to come on 30.04.2024 at 8:00 a.m. in the morning. On 30.4.2024, the complainant Mohanlal (PW-3) appeared before the concerned Superintendent of Police, and was referred to the Inspector Prafull Choudhary (PW-6). In his complaint, the complainant mentioned that the partition amongst his four brothers has already taken place, of which proceedings also initiated in Tehsil Court Namli around one year ago, on the basis of which, a Batwara Fard was to be issued by the Patwari, the appellant Bharatlal herein, and when the complainant met with the appellant Bharatlal, he demanded a sum of Rs.6,000/- to issue Batwara Fard. However, after the complainant pleaded with the appellant, he assented to receive Rs.2,000/-, and called the complainant with the amount on 30.04.2004. The complainant also stated that he does not wish to pay the bribe to the appellant and wants him to be caught red handed. Subsequently, after completing the procedural formalities, a trap was laid and as planned, when the complainant Mohanlal met with the appellant Bharatlal, he gave a sum of Rs.2,000/- comprising of two currency notes of Rs.500/- denomination, and ten currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each, with which the appellant was caught red handed. After the investigation completed, the charge-sheet was filed and the learned Judge of the Trial Court, after recording the evidence has convicted the appellant as aforesaid, and being aggrieved of the same, the present appeal has been preferred.
5] Shri Lokesh Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the learned Judge of the Trial Court has erred in appreciating the evidence on record in its proper perspective. It is submitted that the entire investigation got vitiated on account of non- preparation of panchnama after the conversation was recorded by the complainant with the appellant, and the voice recorder was brought back to the Police Station. It is submitted that it was incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to prepare the panchnama regarding the physical state of the tape recorder, and in the absence of the same, it cannot be said that due procedure was followed in recording the transcript of the conversation. It is submitted that once the conversation is removed from the evidence, there is no cogent material available on record to suggest that the appellant had actually committed the offence when his defence is that the amount was received by him towards the sale of
