Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 583 (RAJ)

Gopi Chand v. State of Rajasthan

2023-02-21

NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA

body2023
ORDER : 1. Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 31.03.1987 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 1/1985, whereby appellant was convicted for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced as under: U/s 161 IPC One year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment. U/s 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 One year simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month’s simple imprisonment 2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 3. As per story of the prosecution, on 03.02.1984 complainant Salim lodged a written report (EX.P2) with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Sikar alleging therein that he was posted as a peon at Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Ayurvedic 'A' Grade Hospital, Sikar. He was transferred to the office of Deputy Director, Ayurvedic Department at Jaipur. From this office he was transferred to the office of District Ayurvedic Officer, Sikar. His service record was received in the office of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government Ayurvedic 'A' Grade Hospital, Sikar where the accused Gopi Chand was working as a clerk. Letters were being received in the office of the aforesaid hospital from the office of the District Ayurvedic Officer at Sikar. But the service roll of the complainant Salim was detained by the accused for non-payment of sum of Rs.30/- which was demanded by the accused from the Salim for sending his service roll to his office. The accused suppressed the letter dated 07.12.1983. On 03.02.1984, the complainant again gave an application for sending his service roll to the Senior Physician of Dr. Rajendra Prasad Government 'A' Class Hospital, Sikar and that application was given to accused Gopi Chand for sending the record and when he met Gopi Chand for sending the record he told that unless Rs.30/- are paid as bribe he would not send the record. 4. Rajendra Prasad Government 'A' Class Hospital, Sikar and that application was given to accused Gopi Chand for sending the record and when he met Gopi Chand for sending the record he told that unless Rs.30/- are paid as bribe he would not send the record. 4. The report was presented by complainant Salim to the Sub- Inspector of Police at the out post A.C.D. at Sikar and information to this effect was given to the A.C.D. Headquarters at Jaipur whereupon the Police Squad with two Deputy Superintendent of Police, Prahlad Singh PW-9 and Mangilal PW-11 were sent to Sikar. They reached Sikar on the night of 03.02.1984 at about 11:30 PM. On the next day i.e. 04.02.1984 at about 11 AM, Salim attended the office of A.C.D. Sikar. Trap proceedings were conducted. Thereafter, the hands and pocket of the accused were washed. The accused was arrested. A recovery memo Ex.P4 was prepared. 5. After completion of trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant. 6. After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. 7. Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial. 8. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. He prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined 8 witnesses in his defence. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that learned trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that prosecution witnesses are highly interested, so, their evidence is unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that evidence of sole witness of decoy Salim is not reliable because Salim had made contradictory statement in the evidence. There is inconsistency in the evidence of Salim. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that evidence of sole witness of decoy Salim is not reliable because Salim had made contradictory statement in the evidence. There is inconsistency in the evidence of Salim. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution story. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that it is very strange that the complainant had not complained to any senior official regarding demand of bribe. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Salim in the FIR stated that he had met the appellant after 07.12.1983 many times but in cross-examination he admitted that he met the appellant 2-3 days before 03.02.1984 and at that time appellant demanded bribe. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that no specific amount was mentioned in the FIR. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that appellant in defence clearly proved that decoy Salim had returned rupees against the price of Muffler which was given to him earlier. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that trial court wrongly disbelieved pro-note (Ex.D2) and receipts (Ex.D3). Handwriting expert Shri Krishna Chandra in his evidence clearly stated that signatures on pro-note and receipts were of Salim. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that on account of mere recovery of tainted amount, appellant could not be convicted. So, judgment and order of the trial court be set aside and appellant be acquitted. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the following judgments : (1) Prakash Manihar v. State in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 389/1991 decided on 25.05.2022; (2) State of Kerala & Anr. v. C.P. Rao reported in (2011) 6 SCC 450 and (3) P. Satyanaraayana Murthy v. District Inspector of Police State reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 . 11. Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant. Hence, the appeal be dismissed. 12. I have considered the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor. 13. It is an admitted position that decoy Salim had not complained regarding demand of bribe to Senior Officials. Independent witnesses in their cross-examination clearly stated that decoy Salim had returned Rs.30/- in lieu of price of Muffler which was given to him earlier. 13. It is an admitted position that decoy Salim had not complained regarding demand of bribe to Senior Officials. Independent witnesses in their cross-examination clearly stated that decoy Salim had returned Rs.30/- in lieu of price of Muffler which was given to him earlier. Appellant in his defence exhibited the documents, (Ex.D2 and Ex.D3 pro-note as well as receipts respectively) in which signature of Salim was proved by the handwriting expert Sh. Krishna Chandra. So, in my considered opinion, learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 on account of recovery of money because demand and acceptance of bribe was not proved by the prosecution. Hence, the judgment and order of the learned trial court deserves to be set aside. 14. Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court dated 31.03.1987 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. 15. In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, appellant-Gopi Chand Son of Gyarsilal is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar (Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.