Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2011 DIGILAW 1429 (MP)

GULAB SINGH s/o ATMA RAM YADAV v. STATE OF M. P.

2011-12-15

M.C.GARG, S.K.SETH

body2011
JUDGMENT : S. K. SETH, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Shajapur under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act' for short) sentencing appellant to rigorous\imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- on each count with default stipulation. 2. Appellant was charged and tried for offences punishable under sections 13(2)/13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Act. By the impugned judgment, trial Court has found him guilty and awarded the jail sentences to run concurrently. 3. At the relevant time and date, appellant was posted and working as Assistant Sub Inspector of Police in the Police Station Kanad, District Shajapur. 4. One Pannalal lodged a report with the Police alleging that Bhagirath son of the Keshulal caused an accident on 25-5-1999 resulting in injuries to son of Pannalal (Suraj). The complaint was handed over to appellant for investigation. Keshulal (P.W.1) and Pannalal (P.W.2) settled the matter between themselves therefore, Keshulal asked the appellant to drop the matter, but he demanded Rs. 500/- as illegal gratification to close the matter. 5. Keshulal was not willing to oblige the appellant, therefore he lodged a complaint in writing (Ex.P.1) to S. P. Lokayukt, Ujjain. Thereupon, Keshulal and 'Panch' witness went back with a tape-recorder and blank audio-cassette to record the conversation and the demand. The tape was brought to the Police Station intact and was properly sealed. Before that a transcript of the recorded conversation was prepared as per Ex.P.3 confirming the demand of illegal gratification made by the appellant, consequently, a case was registered and necessary steps for laying the trap were taken. The trap party went to Police Station where the Keshulal handed over the tainted currency notes to appellant and signalled the trap party. 6. As soon as the pre-arranged signal was given, members of the trap party entered the room and recovered currency notes. The seizure Memo is Ex.P-5. The currency notes were the same which had been chemically treated and bore signatures of the Panch Witness and of which the numbers were noted down These 'currency' notes as also the jacket of the appellant were seized immediately and subjected to chemical examination. The seizure Memo is Ex.P-5. The currency notes were the same which had been chemically treated and bore signatures of the Panch Witness and of which the numbers were noted down These 'currency' notes as also the jacket of the appellant were seized immediately and subjected to chemical examination. After getting the positive report, appellant was then charge-sheeted for the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Act. 7. The case was tried by the Special Judge, Shajapur. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was falsely implicated because of enmity. He also examined witness in defence. Learned Special Judge believed the prosecution evidence in regard to demand, offer and acceptance of illegal gratification as a motive or reward for showing favour to Keshulal. The appellant was accordingly convicted of the offence under section 13(2) read with section 13(1)(d) and section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years' and a fine of Rs. 1000/- or in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for six months on each count. It was also directed that both sentences shall run concurrently. This led to the filing of the present appeal. 8. The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant in this appeal urged that the sanction (Ex. P.24) given for the appellant's prosecution does not show that all relevant material were placed before the authority and that the authority considered those material and the order sanctioning prosecution resulted therefrom. 9. In this regard, it may be pointed out that the question of the validity of sanction does not seem to have been pursued at the time of the trial, for there is no discussion of it in the judgment of the trial Court. Moreover, no attempt was made in the cross-examination of the witnesses to show that the sanctioning authority did not have before it the relevant facts on the basis of which prosecution was desired. Suffice it to say that when the sanction is proved, the Courts will not sit in appeal over it to judge the adequacy of material. The intention of the Legislature in providing sanction in respect of an offence covered by the provisions of Act is to afford a reasonable protection to the public servant in the discharge of their public duties. The intention of the Legislature in providing sanction in respect of an offence covered by the provisions of Act is to afford a reasonable protection to the public servant in the discharge of their public duties. The object is not to provide for a public servant who is guilty of the particular offence to avoid consequences of his criminal act by raising the technical plea of invalidity of sanction. The provision is a safeguard for the innocent and is not a shield for the guilty. 10. In this view of the matter, the sanction Ex.P-24 cannot, therefore, now be allowed to be challenged as invalid. 11. The next contention advanced on behalf of the appellant was that there is no evidence of motive, demand and acceptance of so-called illegal gratification therefore conviction of the appellant is bad. After going through entire evidence on record, we are not impressed by this submission. Prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses in support of the charges against the appellant. Reading entire prosecution evidence in proper perspective lead to the unavoidable conclusion that appellant is guilty beyond reasonable doubt. We find nothing in the cross-examination of the prosecution witnesses to discard their evidence or brand it as unworthy of confidence. We do not think that in this appeal we would be justified in permitting the learned counsel for the appellant to challenge the finding of fact reached by the Special Judge on due appreciation of evidence on this point. It is indeed difficult to believe defence plea. There is absolutely no reason suggested why Keshulal should have tried to falsely implicate the appellant. Prosecution witnesses had no grudge or enmity whatsoever against the appellant and it would be fantastic to suggest that all witnesses should have agreed to falsely implicate an innocent person. The suggestion that Keshulal surreptitiously planted the currency notes is also incredible. It is impossible to believe that Keshulal could have dared to take the risk of planting the currency notes without the appellant noticing it. It is also difficult to understand as to why the appellant should have allowed Keshulal to slip currency notes without the appellant's realising what was happening. There can be no manner of doubt that the currency notes recovered from the spot were not planted there by Keshulal but were put there by the appellant after receiving them from Keshulal. It is also difficult to understand as to why the appellant should have allowed Keshulal to slip currency notes without the appellant's realising what was happening. There can be no manner of doubt that the currency notes recovered from the spot were not planted there by Keshulal but were put there by the appellant after receiving them from Keshulal. Once this conclusion is reached, there is no alternative but to hold that the case of the prosecution is established. A presumption then arises that the appellant accepted or obtained the currency notes as a motive or reward as an illegal gratification and this presumption is clearly not rebutted by the appellant as he has not even attempted to show that he received the currency notes for any other reason. In fact, it is nobody's case that the currency notes were handed over by Keshulal to the appellant for any purpose other than by way of illegal gratification for showing him favour, and therefore, as soon as it is found that, the currency notes were received by the appellant from Keshulal, it must follow as a necessary conclusion that they were given as a motive or reward for showing favour as alleged by the prosecution. 12. Thus, considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, there is no ground to interfere in the impugned judgment of the trial Court. We, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence and dismiss the appeal. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are hereby cancelled. He shall be taken into custody to serve out the remaining part of sentence.