Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 654 (MP)

Jagdish Prasad Sharma v. State of M. P.

2002-07-11

S.S.JHA

body2002
JUDGMENT Appellant is convicted for an offence under section 7 and 13(1) (d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption (hereinafter referred to as an Act.). Appellant was holding the post of Junior Engineer in M.P. Electricity Board at Jaura District Morena. One agriculturist of village Bhatyara Majra Kripalpura of Tahsil Jaura holding 17 Bigha of land and a well is also situated on his land. In order to irrigate his agricultural field he required electric connection. The electricity was supplied to him through one transformer but on account of heavy load on the said transformer complainant applied for sanction of separate transformer of 25 K.W. in the name of his son Ramdeen. The electric polls and line was erected a month before the date of incident. it is alleged that the electric D.P., which was to be installed near the well of complainant was not being installed by the authorities of M.P. Electricity Board. It is alleged that the appellant. Jagdish Prasad was neglecting to supply and install the required D.P. and was demanding gratification of Rs. 2,500/-. The complainant had paid Rs. 1500/- to the appellant. After receiving Rs. 1,500/- he demanded Rs. 1,000/- more. Complainant then submitted an application in the office of Superintendent Lokayukt. Gwalior. On his application trap was arranged and thereby trap party was sent to Jaura. Before the trap the notes supposed to be given for gratification were pasted within Phenolphthalein powder and were kept in the pocket of complainant Ramgopal. The said Rs. 1,000/- were in ten currency notes in the denomination of Rs. 100/- each. Ramrup Singh Ozha has placed Phenolphthalein powder on notes and his hands were washed in the solution of sodium carbonate. After washing of hands the colour of solution turned into pink colour. The said solution was seized in a bottle and was marked by letter 'A'. The trap was arranged and headed by S.L. Ken, District Excise Officer It is stated that after the said notes were handed over to the appellant, complainant signaled to the trap party, which raided the house and on washing the hands of appellant in the solution of sodium carbonate, the colour of solution turned into pink colour. Appellant denied having taken the bribe from the complainant. Trial Court after adjudicating the evidence has convicted the appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted that there is no material on record to convict the appellant. Appellant denied having taken the bribe from the complainant. Trial Court after adjudicating the evidence has convicted the appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted that there is no material on record to convict the appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted that there is no appreciation of evidence by the trial Court before convicting the appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted that there is no record to convict the appellant. Counsel for appellant submitted the there is no appreciation of evidence by the trial Court before convicting the appellant Counsel for appellant attention to the deposition of independent witnesses and submitted that none of the independent witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. He submitted that even complainant Ramgopal has not supported the case of prosecution. In para 2 of his deposition he denied that he knows appellant Jagdish Prasad. He denied having offered bribe to the appellant. In his deposition he has categorically stated that he has not paid Rs. 1,000/-. He denied lodging a complaint in the Lokayukt Cell. PW 2 Mangilal has also not supported the case of prosecution and has simply said that application was filed but no seizure or recovery was made. This witness denied entire prosecution case. Sultan Singh and Ramdeen (PW 4 and PW 5) have also not supported the case of prosecution Ramrup Singh has supported the case of prosecution but the fact remains that the complainant himself had denied offering bribe to the appellant. On further perusal of deposition of S.L. Ken. the prosecution case is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. The motive whether it was the duty of appellant to install the D.P. has not been established by the prosecution. Prosecution has not examined any officer of the Electricity Board to demonstrate and prove the duties assigned to the appellant. Unless appellant had power and was authorized to install D.P. by the Board. the motive for demand of bribe is not established. On failure of prosecution to prove the case and the powers conferred upon the appellant by the M.P. Electricity Board, it will not be safe to convict the appellant. In the result appeal succeeds and allowed. Conviction and sentence of appellant are set aside Bail. bond and surety of appellant are discharged.