Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2002 DIGILAW 854 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Mohanlal Khurana

2002-04-24

O.P.BISHNOI

body2002
JUDGMENT 1. - This appeal by the state has been filed against a judgment dated 20.8.99 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, (Anti Corruption Cases) Udaipur. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, was that in village Suratakheda distt. Chittorgarh, there was a dispute between PW 10 Bherulal on the one side and certain persons of the Banjara community on the other side. The grievance of Bherulal was to the effect that the rainy water which used to be discharged towards the house of Banjara's was stopped by the Banjara's and as a result, the water got diverted towards the house of Bherulal as a result of which he suffered inconvenience. There was a litigation in the civil court and on 23.11.92, the Munsif Kapasan passed an order Ex.D/4 according to which Bherulal was permitted to construct a `Nali' for the discharge of the water. Bherulal was to incur the expenses of the `Nali'. 3. The accused Mohan Lal Khurana was, at that point of time, working as the administrator and secretary of the Gram Panchayat, Akola and Bherulal and other villagers approached his to construct the Nali, so that, the inconvenience to Bherulal and to other residents of village could be avoided. 4. The prosecution story, in nutshell, is to the effect that Mohanlal demanded a bribe of Rs. 2000/- from the said Bherulal (PW 10). On 4.1.94 lodged a written report Ex.P/2 against the accused Mohan lal. As per the report, the complainant Bherulal was to pay Rs. 1,000/- as bribe to the accused initially and the remaining Rs. 1,000/- were to be paid after the `Nali' was constructed by the accused Mohanlal. A trap was planned and currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- produced by Bherulal, were powered and signed by the Dy. S.P., Dilip Singh and the complainant Bherulal along with other witnesses proceeded to the office of the accused on 4.1.94. After the money was delivered to the accused, a signal was transmitted and Dilip Singh and his party pounced upon the accused and the money in question was recovered from his person. After the investigation was over, a challan was filed and the accused was charged under section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He pleaded not guilty. 5. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. After the investigation was over, a challan was filed and the accused was charged under section 7 and 13 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He pleaded not guilty. 5. As many as 11 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The contention of the accused, was to the effect that no money as bribe, was demanded by him. The defence contention was to the effect that the total cost of the construction was assessed at Rs. 10,000/- and the work was to be completed under the scheme known by the name of "Apna Gaon Apna Kaam". It is not disputed that under the said scheme 30% of the cost was required to be contributed by the villagers and subsidy to the extent of 70% of the cost was to be provided by the state. The defence contention was that this payment of Rs. 1,000/- was towards the said 30% and a receipt was duly prepared. However, the Dy. S.P. was bent upon to file a challan and hence the accused was put to trial unnecessarily. No defence witness was examined. The learned trial court, heard the arguments and delivered the judgment on 20.8.99. The accused was acquitted and the State has come in appeal 6. I have heard the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and the learned counsel for the accused and have perused the record of the learned trial court. I find no merit in this appeal and there is no reason to draw a different conclusion from the conclusions drawn by the learned trial court. 7. PW.11 Dilip Singh has supported the prosecution story and has stated that Bherulal came to him and produced the report Ex.P-2 on the basis of which, he proceeded to act in the case. PW-1 Prakash Acharya and PW-9 Manohar Singh are the "Motbirs" which were taken to the office of the accused by Dilip Singh to witness the recovery. They have stated that on they went the office of the accused at the request of Dilip Singh and after the signal, Dilip Singh recovered the money from the accused and the, recovery memo Ex.P-1 was prepared. So far as this part of the statement of the witnesses is concerned, it is not disputed by the accused that Rs. 1,000/- were recovered from him in the presence of Prakash Acharya and Manohar singh. So far as this part of the statement of the witnesses is concerned, it is not disputed by the accused that Rs. 1,000/- were recovered from him in the presence of Prakash Acharya and Manohar singh. As a matter of fact, he did receive the money on 4.1.94 from Bherulal. It was, thus, to be seen by the learned trial court as to whether the money was received by the accused as bribe or it was received as a payment towards the said scheme "Apna Gaon Apna Kaam". PW-2 Dalchand was an accountant of the Panchayat Samiti. He has stated that there was a civil dispute pending in a civil court in respect of the discharge of water. The witness has stated that in his presence, the accused did ask the villagers for Rs. 2,000/- to construct a `Nali'. However, the witness denied that the money, was demanded as a bribe. Consequently, he was declared hostile by the prosecution. Similarly, PW-2 Sawai Lal was examined by the prosecution but he pleaded whole-sale ignorance and stated that he was in know of nothing. Consequently, he was also declared a hostile witness. 8. PW-4 Mangu, PW-5 Daya Ram, PW-6 Madhav Lal. PW-7 Lakha and PW-8 Kalu are all residents of village Suratakheda. According to the prosecution story, they were in the know of everything including the demand of bribe by the accused. However, none of them supported the prosecution story and all the five have been declared hostile witnesses. 9. PW-10 Bherulal, in his examination-in-chief has stated that a bribe of Rs. 2,000/ - was demanded by the accused and he want to the Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Department and lodged the report P-2. He has further stated that thereafter, he went to the office of the accused, delivered the money to him and then signaled the police people to recover the same. Subsequently, the raid-party arrived there and the currency notes were recovered from the accused and the recovery memo PW-1 was prepared, which was thumb marked by him. In his examination-in-chief, he further stated that all the villagers of the village Suratakheda had moved an application to the accused to construct the `Nali' in question. Subsequently, the raid-party arrived there and the currency notes were recovered from the accused and the recovery memo PW-1 was prepared, which was thumb marked by him. In his examination-in-chief, he further stated that all the villagers of the village Suratakheda had moved an application to the accused to construct the `Nali' in question. However, he stated that he does not know personally as to whether the money, which was received by the accused was received as bribe or it was received in connection with the cost of the construction of the `Nali'. As the witness stumbled on this account, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the learned Addl. P.P. During this cross-examination by the AddI.P.P., he narrated that he was illiterate and was not knowing about the contents of the report Ex.P-2. He was confronted with a portion of the report, wherein, it was mentioned that the money was demanded as bribe. The witness denied this portion of the report Ex.P-2 and stated that the part of the report stating that any bribe was demanded, was not written at his instance. He was further confronted with his statement Ex.P-20 which was recorded under section 164 of the Cr.P.C. The witness stated that the part of the statement P-20, wherein, there was a mention of demand of bribe, was not deposed by him. 10. Thus this witness backed-out from the allegation recorded in the report Ex.P2 and his sworn testimony recorded vide Ex.P-20. During his cross-examination, he has further admitted that since the water used to inundate his house, he was so much annoyed that he decided to implicate the accused somehow. He has stated that he lost interest in the construction of `Nali` but was motivated with the burning desire to implicate the accused somehow. He was given a suggestion by the defence counsel that under the scheme "Apia Gaon Apna Kaam", the `Nali' was to be constructed and 30% amount was to be contributed by the villagers. Initially he stated that the money in question was not a part of the contribution. However, subsequently he stated that he does not understand any difference between contribution and a bribe. He has admitted that when an application for construction of `Nali' was given by villagers to the accused, the accused conveyed to them that the money is to be contributed by them. 11. However, subsequently he stated that he does not understand any difference between contribution and a bribe. He has admitted that when an application for construction of `Nali' was given by villagers to the accused, the accused conveyed to them that the money is to be contributed by them. 11. In this way, it is clear that no witness of the village including PW-10 Bherulal has been able to support the story of bribe and all have been declared hostile. It is not in dispute that the scheme by the name of "Apna Gaon Apna Kaam" was in force during the relevant time. From the cross-examination, of PW-1 1 Dilip Singh, it is clear that a receipt of Rs. 1,000/- in question was prepared by the accused under the said scheme. However, according to him the receipt was prepared as a result, of afterthought with an ulterior motive to meet this case and the B.D.O. as well as the accused Mohan Lal were challaned for preparing the said receipt. 12. Be that as it may, the fact remains that the story of bribe has not been supported by any of the witnesses who had a conversation with the accused prior to 4. 1.94. As pointed out earlier, PW-2 Dalchand, PW-3 Sawailal, PW-4 Mangu, PW-5 Daya Ram, PW6 Madhav Lal, PW-7 Lakha and PW-8 Kalu have all turned hostile. So much so, that even the complainant PW-10 Bherulal has not been able to support the prosecution story and he has also been declared hostile. The remaining three witnesses PW- 1 Prakash Acharya, PW-9 Manoharlal and PW-11 Dilip Singh have no personal knowledge of anything prior to the recovery of the money on 4.1.94. 13. Consequently, it is clear that there was no material on the basis of which the learned trial court, could convict the accused Mohan Lal of any charges. The appeal has thus no merit and the same is hereby dismissed. *******