Research › Search › Judgment

Madhya Pradesh High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1039 (MP)

Dilip Sagorkar v. State of M. P.

2014-08-21

P.K.JAISWAL, S.K.SETH

body2014
JUDGMENT Seth, J. -- 1. This appeal arises out of conviction of Dilip Sagorkar (since dead) under section 7 read with sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. He was sentenced to one year RI and fine of Rs.1500/- with default clause of 3 month RI under section 7 of the Act. He was also awarded sentence of one year RI with fine of Rs.1500/- with default stipulation under section 13(1)(d) read with section 13(2) of the Act. The sentence were to run concurrently. 2. During pendency of the appeal, Dilip Sagorkar expired and his name was deleted, the appeal being continued by his widow Smt. Nisha Sagorkar. 3. Looking to the examination of the accused Dilip under section 313 CrPC it is clear that almost all the facts alleged by the prosecution are admitted, the defence being that the complainant Muneshwar Pal (PW2) earlier had borrowed a sum of Rs.1500/- from the accused prior to 6.11.1999 which amount Muneshwar was returning to the accused at the time of the incident dated 6.11.1999. 4. In view of this clear admission of the accused, it is no longer necessary for us to examine in detail the prosecution case about the accused demanding money, a trap being laid, he being caught red-handed with the marked notes, necessary sanction was obtained which is not challenged. In view of the above admissions of the accused, the burden shifts on him to prove the defence about Rs.1500/- being loaned to Muneshwar prior to 6.11.1999, which amount was being returned to the accused by Muneshwar at the time of the incident. 5. The accused examined two defence witnesses to establish the defence raised. We now turn to consider and evaluate the version of each of the defence witnesses. Om Prakash Jain (DW1) Assistant Engineer in the tube-well section of the Indore Municipal Corporation has started thus; on 5.11.1999 during office hours in his presence there was heated exchange of words between the accused and Muneshwar, the accused demanding return of his loan amount of Rs.1500/-; this led the witness Om Prakash asking the disputants to settle the matter out-side the office and at that time Muneshwar had stated that he would return the amount next day. The cross examination of this witness shows that the accused, Beldar in office was not authorized to make payments of salary or arrears. The cross examination of this witness shows that the accused, Beldar in office was not authorized to make payments of salary or arrears. It seems to us that the testimony of Om Prakash DW1 is of doubtful value and he seems to be trying to shield his subordinate worker, the accused. The other defence witness Manik Lal (DW2) a Mechanic in the tube-well section of the Indore Municipal Corporation also comes out with the story about exchange of words between the accused and Muneshwar, a day prior to the incident of trapping when Muneshwar agreed to repay the loan next day at the same time. The criticism about the evidentiary value of the testimony of Om Prakash DW1 also applied to the testimony of Manik Lal DW2. The defence of earlier loan and repayment thereof is obviously and clearly a means to get out of the situation of being caught red-handed with the money, and as such the defence version is open to very serious doubts and misgivings. If such evidence is accepted without any documentary proof in support of the alleged loan, it would be virtually impossible to convict any bribe taking. Hence we would unhesitantly reject the defence raised. That being so, the prosecution case stands proved, according to us. 6. The result is that the appeal of deceased Dilip continued by his widow Smt. Nisha must fail and is hereby dismissed. Fines as ordered by the trial Court, if paid, no further action is required; if not paid, we would set aside the order regarding fines by the lower Court, in the special circumstances of the case which is being, prosecuted by the widow of the accused. 7. Ordered accordingly.