^t--^' ^ ^ 'v'- HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARHATBILASPUR Cr.Anp. No. 188/1994 SB: Hon'ble Shri Justice R.L. Jhanwar APPBLLANT Jagatoarain Tripathi Versus RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now C.G.) JUDGMENT Post for pronouncement of Judgment 2.&'. 11.2009 Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge '»•»- -g' / ^^'-'y m HIGH COURT OF CHHAmSGAMIAT BILASPUR Cr. App. No. 188/1994 SB: Hon'ble Shri Justi<;a R.L. Jhanwar APPELLANT Jagatnarain Tripathi son of Kedarnath Tripathi aged 53 years, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police, Police Chouki- Belgahna, At preSent attached to Police Line, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur(MP) (Now'CG) Sf B RESPONDENT VersQS The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now C.G.) Ap&earance: Shri Chandresh Shrivastava, counsel for the appellant. Shri Aryind Sfaulda, Pdnel La'i'.'yer for the State. JUDGXENT (Delivered on^s"! 1.2009) This Criminal Appeal is directed against the judginent of conviction and order'of sentence dated 15.2.1994, passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge'Ss Special Judge, Bilaspur in Special Case No.3/87, whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 161 ofthe IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section (5) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (henceforth 'theAct of 1947') and sentenced him to undergo S.I. for 1 year and to pay a fise of Rs.500/-, in default of payn'ient of fine to further undergo S.I. for 2 l/i.months on ea.ch count. Both the sentences were directed to yun concurrently. .•'- . - •'i^ . 2. . Thejudgment of the trial Coui-t is challen^ed on the ground that witBout there being any proof of motive or reward of 3" a acceptance or recovery of alleged illegal gratification, the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant under those sections. 3. It is not disputed that on the date of incident i.e. on 11.12.1984, the accused/appellant was posted as Sub Inspector at Belgahna Police Chouki under Police Station- Kota, District Bilaspur. 4. Brief facts leading to filing of this appeal are that one Janakram Porte, lodged a report on 9.11.1984 at Police Chouki, Belgahna against the complainant Chaturi Singh (PW-12) and other 5 accused. TUe matter was investigated by a Head Constable. According to the complainant, one Constable Sheetaldas Manikpuri came and told him that if he wants to close that case, he has to pay Rs.1200/- The complainant and 4 other accomplices namely Rainlal, Rambali, Kalanath and Bidhansingh collected raoney and gave Rs.1200/- to Mukund Singh who in turn had paid the said aniount to Constable Manikram. Thereafter, on' 07.12.1984 Sub Inspector-appellant came to village and called complainant and five other persons and informed them to pay Rs.1200/- for closing that case. As the complainant Chaturi Singh did not want to give illegal gratification, therefore, they wrote a complaint Ex.P/3 and went to Office of Special Police Establishment and submitted the complaint. On this, Janardhan Singh Thakur, Dy. Collector and J.P.Sinha, Naib Tehsildar were called and they were introduced to the complainant who give thera Rs.1200/-. Number of currency notes was written in Panchnama. Tbe-- currency notes in sum of Rs.1200/- were layered with phenolphthalein -, powder. Necessary chemical test of / phenolpht]'iq»fein powder with sodium carbonate was demonstrated and preliminaiy panchnama^as prepared and after that trap was arranged. . The layered . currency notes were given to the .cosaplainant and he was directed that money should be given to v\\ l*Ni te the appellant only on deinand and after givirig that money he shall give signal to the trap parly. The complainant accompanied by trap party went to Belgahana and then complainant with one Ramlal was sent to to give money. The complainant went inside the house of the appellant and signalled after coming out and spending 10 minutes inside. Thereafter, immediately the ta-ap party rushed. Seeing the trap party,.the appellant shut the door from. inside and after raaking many efforts, the door was not opened by the appellant. The complainant stated that after taking money, the appellant put that money in a bag and went inside the house and Wtl.^i shut the door. After few minutes, the appellant came ou^'witti trt lungi, baniyan and shawl and told that he came frora tour." When he was asked about Rs.1200/- he denied and told that he had not taken any money. Despite search being effected, no currency notes were made available. -• Then colourless solution of Sodium Carbonate was prepared and hands of the accused were put in the solution, which became pink. It was sealed and seizure was made. The black bag was also recovered from the table of the appellant and in that.bag also search was made, but money was not found in that bag also. Then the papers which were kept inside the bag and the bag were dipped in the next prepared solution of Sodium Carbonate, which became pink, which was also seized. On being asked, the appellant tpld that he had not taken any money from the complainant. Despite all efforts being made, the trap party could neither recover the phenolphthalein powdered currency notes from the possession of-the appellant nor from the house of die appellant. Thereafter, Istagasa was prepared and statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and necessary seizures were made. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination. Dekati Nalishi was prepared and after reaching •*-- Police Station, F.I.R. was lodged. and investigation commenced. ]i.,i.ii. /A1 E 5. After completion of the investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. On 31.8.87, when the Special Judge was posted by the Hon'ble High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, the case was inade over to that Court. 6. The learned Special Judge, framed charge under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section (5) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 against the accused/appellant and read over and explained it to him. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and stated that he has been falsely implicated in the case. ^t:;l s 7. The learned Special Judge has, after evaluation of the evidence available on record and hearing the counsel for respective parties, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as above. 8. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record of the trial Court. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the deinand of illegal gratification and there. is no proof of seizure of rnoney, therefore, no case is made against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. He also argued that evident of Chaturi Singh was not corroborated by any other evidence of members of the trap party and independent witnesses. Therefore, the testimony of members of the trap party should not be relied on. In that regard, he placed rgliance on Som Prakash vs. State of Punj'ab, 1992 Cri.L.J. 490, Ayyasami^vs. State of Tamil Nadu, 1992 Cr.L.J. 608, A. Subair ys./State of Kerala, 2009 AIR SCW 3994 and State of tharashtra vs. Dnyaneshwar Lcixman Rao Wankhede, 2009 AIRSCW5411. '*•*- )i|'B- ^ 10. On the other hand, leamed counsel for the State supported the judgment of conviction and order of sentence and argued that the evidence of trap officers can be relied on even without corroboration. In this case the evidence of trap officers is corroborated by the .Complainant Chaturi Singh and that no animosity was shown by the appellant after being nabbed by the trap party. Reliance in the mattgr of State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah, AIR 1998 SC 1474 and State of Gujarat vs. Raghunath Vamanrao Baxi, AIR 1985 SC 1092. |l-ir- 11. It is not disputed that at the time of incident the appellant - Jagatnarayan was posted as Sub Inspector in Belgahna Police Station and he was a Government servant and lawful permission was taken for his prosecution. It is also not disputed that a case was registered against the complainant and 5 others on the report ofjanakram Porte. 12. Ex.P.3 is fhe report written by Madanlal Tiwari P.W.3 on the instructions of Chaturi Suigh P.W.12 and that report was given to Commissioner who called M.K.Hiradhar, D.S.P. fVigilance) P.W.13 and D.L.Markam, D.S.P. fVigilance) and Inspector Gond and asked them to make arrangements for trap party. Trap party consisting of M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13, J.P.Sinha P.W.9, Kalanath P.W.8, Laxmi Prasad Pandey P.W.7, Brij Bihari, Mishra P.W.5, Shivji Singh P.W.2, D.L.Markam (now died) and Janardhan Singh Thakur (Deputy Collector) was arranged. According to the evidence of M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13, Chaturi Singh P.W.12, J.P.Sinha P.W.9, Brijbihari Mishra P.W.5 and Shivji Singh P.W.2, it is clear that receiving rcport from Chaturi Singh, amount of Rs.1200/- in denomina:tion ofRs.100/- each was taken from Chaturi Singh and 4 •. . - s.. those currency notes werS'Iayered with Phenolphthalein powder ,and c&lburiess soluddn of sodium carbonate and reaction of Phenolphthalein was demonsta-ated and that solutions were seized. si .,i ^w Number of currency notes was written in preliminary panchnama and the complainant Chaturi Singh was instructed to give those notes on demand to the appellant while putting those notes in his pocket and thereafter the ta'ap parly arrived at Belgahna. All the above'faets were proved by the above witaesses. 13. It is evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P.W.12 that one case was registered by the appellant on the report ofjanakram Porte against hira, Bidhansirigh, Ramsingh, Kalanath and Aran Singh and for that pne Constable Sheetaldas Manikpuri has asked them an ampunt ofRs.l200/-.to close the case against them and that amount was given to him. Thereafter, the appellant came to their village and again asked a sum of Rs.1200/- from Chaturi Singh to close the case. For that, they gathered and collected money but they do not want tbat sum to the appellant.. This fact is also proved by Kalanafh P.W.8, Mukund Singh P.W.6 and Madanlal Tiwari P.W.2 who wrote the complaint. 14. The fact that when the members of trap party reached Belgahna took their position to nab the appellant and for that complainant Chaturi Singh was sent to the appellant to offer that money is also corroborated by the testimony of Shivji Singh P.W.2, J.P.Sinha P.W.9, Chaturi Singh P.W.12 and M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13. 15. It is also evident from the testimony of Chaturi Singh P.W.12 that as soon as he reached police chouki at that time the appellant was found in police chouki and the appellant demanded money fror&'the complainant upon which he gave those currency notes kept in his pocket-.and signalled the trap party. The trap party "rushed towards police chouki and after seeing the trap party the accysed appellant imruediatel^^ntered inside the house and bolted the door from inside and .did not open the door for some time despite efforts being ma.de by the trap party. It is also evident from lllil: lyi.l.L •^q^ 7 1111 paragraph 5 of his testimony that the complainant alone himself went to the appellant and gave those Phenolphthalein powder layered currency notes. 16. After few minutes thereafter, the appellant-came to police chouki wearing lungi, baniyan and shawl. The trap party asked hira about the money given by the complainant whereupon he denied. The door of the house was.later on opened and trap party entered the inside and searched and the money was not found an3?where. Thereafter, the hands of the accused appellant were dipped in colourless Sodium Carbonate which becanie pink. The trap party also found one black bag containing some papers. All the above facts revealed that the testimony of J.P.Sinha P.W.9 and M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13, who were the members of the trap party, is supported by the testimony of complainant Chaturi Singh P.W.12 and the demonstration of chemical procedure. 17. It. is also evident froni the testimony of Chaturi Singh that one black bag was found on the. table and after taking illegal gratification, those currency notes were put amongst papers in black bag, which was seized vide Ex.P.9, and that bag and papers therein were also dippe'd in colourless Sodium Carbonate solution which also became pink and this fact is corroborated by M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13 and J.P. Sinha P.W.9. 18. M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13 also Stated that Chaturi Singh told him that fhe appellant took money and put it in black bag and after^ giving money he gave signal and as soon they (trap party) reached, the appellant bolted the door from inside. / 19. Thus, tt is clear from the testimony ofChaturi Singh P.W.12, M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13 and ^P.Sinha P.\V.9 that complainant Chaturi Singh P.W. 12 gave bribe money to the appellant, which he put in black bag and after seeing the trap party he bolted the door ^•^ 1.!!;;' w ...s.-i.^as-'"^"-"' 8 ite li instantly from inside. It is also evident from these witnesses that after'few minutes he came out wearing lungi, baniyan and shawl and told that he just came from tour. After that the room was searched and bribe money'was not found anywhere. The hands of the appellant and black bag and also papers therein were dipped in the colouriess solution of Sodiuna Carbonate which turned pink. All these facts are proved by other witnesses also. 20. It is also clear from the evidence of Chaturi Singh P.W.12, Bhukhan Das P.W.4, Mukund Singh P.W.6 and Kalanath P.W.8 that one case was registered against them by one Janakram Porte and in order to close the case against these persons the appellant deinanded illegal gratification. 21. It is also emerged from the testimony of Madanlal Tiwari P.W.3 that he wrote the complaint on the instructions of Chaturi Singh. So far as the money demanded by the appellant and given by the Chaturi Singh is concemed, it is evident from the statement of Chaturi Singh P.W.12 that as soon as he entered the room, the appellant demanded money which was given by the complainant and thereafter gave signal to the trap party. According to Chaturi Singh, the appellant after taking that money put it in black bag, which fact is also corroborated by M.K.Hiradhar P.W.13 and J.P.Sinha P.W.9 that the black bag was seized and chemical test was done and in chemical solution the bag and papers therein becanae pink thereby meaning that the appellant demanded money and that money was given by the complainant Chaturi Singh P.W.13. 22. The arguirient advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that rio currency notes were recovered from the appellant \^ . ^ • ~ .•<»,»,,, ^ nor in his hoyse nor atleast in black bag, and therefore, he is entitled to re-lease is. unacceptable. No doubt money was not i'- ', •.-..-^^.^.....^' -y^ - "^-^/ recovered from the appellant nor in his house and in black bag but after considering the endre evidence, the circumstances that as soon as the currency notes of Rs.1200/- (hundred rupees denomination each) were handed over to the appellant and the bribe-giver also saw that.those currency notes were kept in black bag would show that the appellant accepted the bribe and put the same in that bag. After handing over that money the complainant came out and signalled the trap party and after receiving the signal the trap party immediately rushed to the spot and after seeing the trap party the appellant bolted the door from inside would also show the conduct of the appellant that no doubt he demanded and thereafter accepted the bribe money from the conaplainant. These facts are also proved by the witnesses i.e. M.K.HiradUar and J.P.Sinha. More over, no explanation was forthcoming from the appellant that why he bolted the door from inside. 23. In his statemeht under Section 113 Cr.P.C. upon a question being asked about the black bag, he admitted that black bag and papers therein, which was seized vide Ex.P.9, belonged to him and did not deny that bag and papers therein belonged to him. Thus, it can be safely inferred that the appellant has accepted bribe money. It is also pertinent to mention here that after seizure, when the bag -and papers kept in it after dipped into colouriess solution of Sodium Carbonate then it became pink has not been stated anything about this. It is also to be noted that when the appellant after spending few minutes came out told the trap party that he just copie from tour but no Roznamchasanha was produced in which if~is inentioned that he is on four and the place he has gone. The above circumstance goes against the appellant. A person can make a false stateruent but the circumstances cannot speak lie. Thus, the above circumstanc&'proved the guilt of the accused. T m y^ ^ r 1 tSI j •; 10 24. In State of U.P. vs. Zakaullah (supra), the Hon'ble Apex Court held that the evidence of trap officers could be relied on even without corroboration. In State of Gujra.t vs. Raghunath Vanuinrcio Bdxi (supra), fhe Hon'ble Suprenie Court has further held that in criminal cases evidence of witnesses especially Government Servants and police officials cannot be brushed aside merely on the ground that they are Government Servants who, in due course of their duties or even othenvise, might have come into contact with investigating officers and who might have been requested to assist the investigating agencies. In the present case also, the prosecution has successfully led the evidence of trap officers like M.K.Hiradhar, J.P.Sinha and that of complainant Chaturi Singh and proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant is distinguishable on facts and circumstances of the present case and does not help the appeUant. 25. Having considered the facts and circumstances of the case and the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, I am of the considered tipinion that the learned trial Court has not erred in believing the evidence of witnesses produced by the prosecution and thus rightly convicted the under Section 161 of the IPC and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section (5) (2) of the Act of 1947 and awarded sentence thereof. 26. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. - 1 R.L. Jhanwar Judge Sss. ~>1»- ^f» -»K KE 7