IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR BEFORE HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJENDRA KUMAR VANI CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 9915 of 2018 VIVEK SAHU Versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Appearance:

Shri Jasneet Singh Hora - Advocate for the appellant.

Shri Sanjay Sarwate - Advocate for the respondent.

------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Reserved on : 12.12.2025 Delivered on : 18.12.2025 J U D G M E N T (18/12/2025)

Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2018 passed by the learned Special Judge (Lokayukta), Jabalpur in Special Case No.03/2016 convicting the present appellant (hereinafter referred to as the 'accused') for the offence punishable under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short the 'Act') and by virtue of Section 71 of the IPC sentencing him under Section 7 and 13(1)(d)(ii) read with Section 13(2) of the Act to suffer R.I. for four years and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default, further R.I. for one month, this appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure.

2. In brief the case of prosecution is that Devi Singh (hereinafter referred to as the 'complainant') submitted a written complaint (Ex.P/4) dated

03.07.2015 before the local office at Jabalpur of Special Police Establishment, Bhopal stating therein that an arrest warrant was issued against him by the Court of Shri Santosh Kol, Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jabalpur in a matter relating to cheque bounce and he was released on bail in the said matter from that court but the present appellant, who at the relevant point of time was posted at Police Station Shahpura Bhitoni, under the threat of handcuff and arrest was harassing him in the name of compliance of said arrest warrant. The accused/appellant was not having any regard to the bail order passed by the Court. The accused/appellant had taken Rs.3000/- and was demanding Rs.2000/- more as illegal gratification. On the aforesaid complaint, the then Superintendent of Police directed the Inspector Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) to take necessary action. Thereafter, the complainant carrying a Digital Voice Recorder along with one Jahar Singh (a shadow witness) was sent to the accused/appellant. The complainant informed to Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) that he had recorded the conversation with the accused regarding demand of bribe. Later on, on the same day i.e. 03.07.2015, complainant along with Jahar Singh appeared in the office of Lokayukta, Jabalpur and submitted a second complaint dated 03.07.2015 (Ex.P/8) before the Superintendent of Police, Jabalpur. As per the directions, panch witnesses, namely, Khemraj Shyam (PW-4) and Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6) appeared in the Lokayukta office at Jabalapur. The complainant was read aloud the contents of complaints (Ex.P/4 and P/8) by both the panch witnesses. On the basis of conversation recorded between accused and complainant in the Digital Voice Recorder, a transcript (Ex.P/7)

was prepared. Rajeev Gupta (PW-7) has registered an offence at Crime No.0/15 dated 03.07.2015 against the present appellant, copy of which is Ex.P/34. Original Crime No.284/2015 has been registered on the basis of Ex.P/34, which is Ex.P/36.

3. Three C.Ds. have been prepared by the Digital Voice Recorder and the seizure memo of which has been prepared as Ex.P/28 and the envelop of C.D. is Article-A and in respect of which Certificate of Section 65B of the Evidence Act is Ex.P/35. Thereafter, complainant Devi Singh presented four currency notes having denomination of Rs.500/- each and the serial numbers thereof were noted down on a separate paper (Ex.P/19) by panch witness Suraj Narayan Pandey (PW-6). These currency notes were treated with Phenolphthalein Powder. The treated currency notes were kept in the left pocket of the paint of complainant and he was directed not to come in contact with these treated currency notes unless accused