Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 434 (MP)

Radheshyam Patel v. State Of M. P.

2008-03-18

A.K.SHRIVASTAVA

body2008
JUDGMENT : Feeling aggrieved by the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11-1-1994 passed by learned Special Judge, Bhopal in Special Case No. 10/93, convicting the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 (in short 'the Act') and thereby sentencing him to suffer imprisonment as directed in the impugned judgment, this appeal has been preferred by him under section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. 2. In brief the case of prosecution as borne out from the impugned judgment is that complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman is residing with his mother Smt. Faiyaz Jahan Begum. An electric meter has been installed in the name of Smt. Faiyaz Jahan Begum. A combined electric bill of months September to December, 1990 and January, 1991 and the arrears, in total Rs. 12,615/- was received by the complainant. The complainant, thereafter approached the appellant on 19-2-1991 so that the amount of bill may be reduced. It is the further case of prosecution that appellant told complainant that the bill of Rs. 12,615/- will be reduced to Rs. 3,000/- only and for that he made demand of illegal gratification of Rs. 1,500/-, but the matter was settled for Rs. 1,000/-. Complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman was not inclined to give the bribe to the appellant and was desirous to get him caught red handed, as a result of which he approached the Office of Lok Ayukta and submitted a written report against the appellant. 3. On lodging of the report in the Office of Lok Ayukta, a trap was arranged and Panchnama was prepared. In the Panchnama the number of currency notes were mentioned and after quoting currency notes by phenolphthalein powder the same were kept in the pocket of the complainant. Thereafter the trap party reached the office of appellant and after pacifying and giving directions to the complainant, he (complainant) was sent to the appellant. The complainant met the appellant and thereafter both of them went to Rathore Hotel which is located opposite the State Bank. In the hotel, on demand being made by the appellant, complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- which were covered by phenolphthalein powder. These currency notes were kept by the appellant in the right pocket of his trouser. Thereafter, on giving signal by the complainant the trap party came and caught hold of the appellant. In the hotel, on demand being made by the appellant, complainant gave Rs. 1,000/- which were covered by phenolphthalein powder. These currency notes were kept by the appellant in the right pocket of his trouser. Thereafter, on giving signal by the complainant the trap party came and caught hold of the appellant. The hands of appellant were washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and the solution turned to pink. The currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- were also recovered from right pocket of the trouser of the appellant and they were also seized and sealed. The pocket of the trouser of the appellant was also washed with the solution of sodium carbonate and colour of the wash was turned to pink. The tinted solution and trouser were seized and sent for chemical examination from where positive report was received. Thereafter, after obtaining permission to prosecute the appellant, a charge-sheet was submitted in the Special Court. 4. The learned Special Judge on the basis of allegations made in the charge-sheet framed charges punishable under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. Needless to emphasis, appellant denied the charges and requested for trial. 5. In order to prove the charges prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses and placed Exs.P-1 to P-31, the documents on record. 6. The defence of the appellant is of false implication and the same defence he set-forth in his statement recorded under section 313, Criminal Procedure Code. In support of his defence, appellant examined four witnesses, namely, Rukmani Bai as DW-1, his uncle Inam-ul Haq, who is also an employee of Electricity Board as DW-2, Assistant Engineer Ranjeet Singh as DW-3 and Sharad Bhardwaj as DW-4. 7. Learned Special Judge on the basis of oral and documentary evidence placed on record came to hold that the appellant did commit the offences for which he was charged and eventually convicted him and passed the sentences which are mentioned in the impugned judgment. 8. In this manner the appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge. 9. 8. In this manner the appellant has preferred this appeal assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Special Judge. 9. Shri S. C. Datt, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant has submitted that if the prosecution evidence and the documents placed on record are considered in proper perspective, it will be difficult to hold that the appellant made any demand or he has committed any offence for which he was charged. By inviting my attention to the testimony of complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman (PW-1) as well as the evidence of Assistant Engineer Vijay Ksheersagar (DW-3) it has been contended by learned senior counsel that indeed the mother of complainant went to the office of appellant to get the matter settled because an excessive amount of electric bill was received by her, but she was misbehaved by the appellant and for that complainant went to lodge complaint in the office of Lok Ayukta where Inspector Yadav insisted and pacified complainant that complaint of harassment or misbehaviour with his mother cannot be accepted by him, but, in case complainant submits a report that appellant made a demand of bribe, that type of complaint can be accepted and registered. Further it has been argued by learned senior counsel by inviting my attention to the statement of complainant that it will be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of complainant because according to him, the alleged demand of bribe was made by the appellant in presence of three very high officers. They are; Assistant Engineer Vijay Ksheersagar (PW-3), Executive Engineer R. C Yadav (PW-4) and Junior Engineer Ranjeet Singh (DW-3). On these premised submissions it has been contended by learned senior counsel that no demand of bribe was made by the appellant and if that is the position, learned Special Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant. 10. On the other hand, Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record in order to prove that appellant made a demand of Rs. 1,000/- from complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman. 10. On the other hand, Shri Aseem Dixit, learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the respondent/State argued in support of the impugned judgment and has submitted that there is overwhelming evidence on record in order to prove that appellant made a demand of Rs. 1,000/- from complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman. Further it has been argued by learned Public Prosecutor that learned Special Judge has assigned cogent reasons while holding the appellant to be guilty of the offences for which he was charged and hence contended that this appeal has no substance and the same be dismissed. 11. Having heard learned counsel for the parties, I am of the view that this appeal deserves to be allowed. 12. On going through the complaint Ex.P-1 which was lodged by complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman in the Office of Lok Ayukta this Court finds that the bill of the arrears of electricity charges Rs. 12,615/- was received by his mother and to get this amount reduced, he approached Mr. Ksheersagar, Executive Engineer of the Electricity Board and submitted an application to him. According to the evidence of complainant this application was submitted by him two months prior to the date of lodging of complaint Ex.P-1 (complaint was lodged on 20-2-1991). It has been further mentioned in the complaint that when the complainant approached the appellant on 19-2-1991 to make inquiry about his electric bill, he (appellant) told him that in case complainant gives Rs. 1,500/- the arrears of electric bill Rs. 12,615/- shall be reduced to Rs. 3,000/- and he will write a note-sheet in that regard to the officers. On this, complainant told that amount of Rs. 1,500/- is exorbitant and thereafter the matter was settled at Rs. 1,000/-. 13. However, when complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman appeared as PW-1 in the Court altogether a different story he has put-forth. In para 2 of his testimony he has stated that his uncle pacified that complainant should pay Rs. 3,000/- and on its payment the case of arrear bill will be closed, but this witness put his inability and told to his uncle that he is not having Rs. 3,000/- with him because he had recently paid Rs. 4,000/-. On this, his uncle asked to make payment of Rs. 1,000/- and rest amount shall be deposited in instalments. 3,000/- and on its payment the case of arrear bill will be closed, but this witness put his inability and told to his uncle that he is not having Rs. 3,000/- with him because he had recently paid Rs. 4,000/-. On this, his uncle asked to make payment of Rs. 1,000/- and rest amount shall be deposited in instalments. It will be pertinent to mention that uncle of the complainant Inam-ul Haq, is also an employee of the Electricity Board and was examined as DW-2. 14. Further it has been stated by the complainant in para 3 of his testimony that he also met Assistant Engineer Ksheersagar and explained to him the entire situation and asked whether it is possible that arrears may be reduced to Rs. 3,000/- and the said amount can be deposited in instalments. But, Mr. Ksheersagar became annoyed and called appellant. Thereafter appellant in presence of Assistant Engineer told that the rule which was quoted by his uncle DW-2 is correct and asked complainant to bring Rs. 1,000/- so that amount of arrears may be reduced to Rs. 3,000/- and the same shall be recovered by depositing the same in instalments. Thereafter appellant went away from the chamber of Assistant Engineer Ksheersagar. The complainant asked Divisional Engineer Yadav and Assistant Engineer Ranjeet Singh who were present in the same chamber where the appellant made the demand of Rs. 1,000/-, on this, Divisional Engineer Yadav told that if complainant wants to get his case closed he has to deposit Rs. 1,000/-. On this he became annoyed and went to the Office of Lok Ayukta. 15. According to this witness, thereafter he met Inspector Yadav of Lok Ayukta Office who told him some legal points and directed him to write those points in the application and thereafter he submitted written application Ex.P-1. In para 5 of his testimony, this witness has stated that a trap was arranged and currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- quoted by phenolphthalein powder were given to him (complainant) and he was directed to handover the same to the appellant. In para 6, this witness has stated that he went to the Office of Lok Ayukta and from where he accompanied appellant and thereafter both of them went to a hotel and he gave currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- to him, which were kept by the appellant in right pocket of his trouser. In para 6, this witness has stated that he went to the Office of Lok Ayukta and from where he accompanied appellant and thereafter both of them went to a hotel and he gave currency notes of Rs. 1,000/- to him, which were kept by the appellant in right pocket of his trouser. Thereafter members of trap party came and caught the appellant. In very specific words this witness has stated that neither his nor the hands of appellant were washed. At this stage this witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. 16. The statement of this witness (complainant) in para 9 is very important because the same is the turning point of the case. In this para it has been stated that in his complaint he did not state about the conversation which took place between him and Divisional Engineer and Assistant Engineer. Specifically he has stated that Inspector Yadav directed him not to write all those things in the complaint Ex.P-1. Thereafter he has stated that indeed complaint Ex.P-1 was dictated by Inspector Yadav. On this, Court put a question to him that whether the demand of bribe of Rs. 1,000/- was made by the appellant or the demand of Rs. 1,000/- was made in respect to the payment of electric bill so as to reduce the arrears. In answer to this question put by the Court, this witness remained silent for one-two minutes and thereafter he stated that appellants intention was to demand the bribe. 17. By clerical error in the deposition-sheet of PW-1 after para 9 again 'para 8' has been typed. In this para 8 it has been admitted by the complainant that when appellant made demand of Rs. 1,000/- in presence of Assistant Engineer Mr. Ksheersagar, he cannot say whether he (appellant) made demand of bribe or made demand to deposit a sum of Rs. 1,000/- towards instalment. Further he has stated that he did not seek any clarification whether the demand of Rs. 1,000/- is made by the appellant towards bribe or for the deposit of arrears of electric bill by instalment. Further he has stated that in the Lok Ayukta Office specifically he told that the intention of appellant is not clear and he did not seek any clarification in this regard. Again he repeated that the complaint was dictated to him by the Inspector. 18. Further he has stated that in the Lok Ayukta Office specifically he told that the intention of appellant is not clear and he did not seek any clarification in this regard. Again he repeated that the complaint was dictated to him by the Inspector. 18. On marshalling the evidence of Mehmood-ur Rehman (PW-1) following inferences are carved out :- (i) indeed he went to lodge the report in the Lok Ayukta Office making complaint of harassment and misbehaviour which was made by the appellant to his mother; (ii) Inspector Yadav of Lok Ayukta Office was not accepting such report and he (Inspector Yadav) dictated complaint Ex.P-1 which was submitted by the complainant under his signature; (iii) the intention of appellant was not clear whether he was making demand of Rs. 1,000/- as bribe or towards payment of arrears of electric bill by instalment; and (iv) demand of Rs. 1,000/- was made by the appellant in the chamber of Assistant Engineer Mr. Ksheersagar where two other Engineers R. C. Yadav and Ranjeet Singh were present and in presence of those officers the demand was made. On close scrutiny of the evidence of complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman (PW-1) I am of the view that complainant himself is not sure that the demand of Rs. 1,000/- was made as bribe or the demand was made towards payment of arrears of electric bill in instalment. Even otherwise it will be highly unsafe to hold and the explanation of complainant cannot be stretched up-to the extent that appellant will make any demand of bribe in presence of higher officers including Divisional Engineer. The complaint Ex.P-1 and the contents thereof are not the out-come of the reality, but has been dictated by Inspector Yadav. Thus it will be highly unsafe to place reliance on the testimony of complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman (PW-1) in order to hold that any demand of Rs. 1,000/- towards illegal gratification was made by the appellant. 19. Since from the evidence of complainant Mehmood-ur Rehman (PW-1) demand of illegal gratification has not at all been found to be proved, I am of the view that learned trial Judge erred in law in convicting the appellant for the charges framed against him. 20. Eventually, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. 20. Eventually, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside and appellant is acquitted from all the charges levelled against him. He is on bail, his bail-bonds are discharged.