C^ft\ ^\- Y 1N_JHE Hia'1 CGURT 6F MADHYA PRADE^ AT JABALPUR. CRIMIN^L APPEAL No.j^i7/94 APPELLANT ^ : Laxmi Narayan Son of Bhagwat Prasad Jsi'swal sged about 29 ,years, Resident of Puram , Basti, Katghora, Lower ©ivisionClerk, . Tahstl Offlce, Katghora, eilaspyr. / . L< RESPONDENT ^y ^n^SS. -yersus- V" : The State of M. P. ^l^l. -V4S^..^V0^.1^ ,/' / —„...........Ad.w^ppEAL ONOER ^CTION 374(2) OF THE'CRIMINAL PROCEOURE CO ££. 1[ BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.05 11:48:44 +0530 <3/ ^ HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. ADpeal No. 1417/1994 Single Bench: Hon'ble Shri Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh, J. LAXMINARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MA&HYA PRAbESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTIS6ARH) Post for orders: Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge ^' HI6H COURT OF CHHATTIS6ARH AT BILASPUR Cr. ADpeal No. 1417/1994 Singl®Bench: Hon'ble Shrl Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh^ ^ LAXAMNARAYAN Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH (NOW STATE OF CHHATTESGARH) PRESENT: - Shri K.A- Ansari, leamed Senior Advocate with Shri NP.Kela, counsel for the accused-appellant. Shri U.K.S.Chandel, P.L for the State. JUt^MENT (Delivered on 10 -03-2006) 1. This appeal is directed a9ainst the judgment dated 10-11-1994 delivered by Smt. S.B. Minj, Hnd Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in ^ecial Criminal Case No.06/1987 whereby the appellant was convicted under Section-161 of IPC <xnd Under Section-5(l)(d) read with Section-5^(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 and w<xs sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs,500/- on both counts and in default of payment of fine to undergo simpte imprisonment for 2 & i" months on both counts, ^ It is not disputed that on 05-07-1982, the appellamt was posted as Clerk in Revenue Depart-ment, Tehsil Office-Katghora. Briefly stated 1fie prosecution story is that one Samaru Singh had made an application in the Court of Tehsildar, Katghora for allotment of tank situated on government kxnd on lease, In this connection, he met the appeliant who demanded brib®of Rs.100/- and asked Samaru Singh to meet Tehsildar. On 04-07-1982, complainant met the Tehsildar who told him that if he gives Rs.2,000/- to the dppellant, his work will be done. However, Samaru could not arron9e for Rs.2,000/-. He got an application Ex.P-8 drafted through scribe Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6 and submitted it to the Specral Police Establishment, Bilaspur. A trap was organized- Samam PW-1 fumished two currency notes of Rs.50/- each. After application of phenolphthalein powder to the notes, Samaru was directed to hand over the notes to 1+ie appelhnt and to give a si9nal. Accordingly, the trap party left for Tehsil Office- Kat9hora. Tehsildar Shri A.K-Verma PW-2, Depu-ty Superintendent of Police BK.M^a- PW-10. Head Constable Brij Bihari Mishra, PW-7 ond Krishna Kumar Pondey PW-6 accompomied Samaru Singh PW-1 to the Tehsil Office-Katghora . As planned Samaru PW-1 ^ 4. handed over two notes of Rs.50/- each to the appelkant ;/>«^r which the cppellant received and kept in his full/pocket. Upon receivin9 signal, Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri ©.K.A^tea.PW-10caught hold of the hands of the oppellcxnt which were woished in the solution of Sodium Carbonate. The solution changed the colour to light pink< The two notes of RS.TO/- each were also washed in the ^)lution of Sodium Carbonate. The solution changed the colour to pink. The two notes were seized from 1+ie appellomt vide seizure memo Ex.P-3. Dehati btalishi was recorded victe ExP-10. The seized currency notes of Rs.50/- each and the solution of Sodium Cdrbonate we.re. sent to Forensic Science Laboratory. SoQar vide memo Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-14. Vide rqaort Ex.P-16, it was opined by Forensic Science Laboratory, Sa9ar that washin9 from the pant, washing of the currency notes ond the hand wash of the appellGnt were positive for the test of Sodium Carbonate. SoBiction was accorcted vicfe Ex.P-17 for prosecuting the appellwit under Section-161 of IPC and Section-5(l)(d) & 5 0(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 by the State govemment. Prosecution was taunched against the dppellant. The appellont abjured the guilt, pleaded innocence in defence and led no evidence. The prosecution examirwsd ois moiny as 11 witnesses. The trial Court relyin9 upon r the evidence led by the prosecution convicted omd sentenced the oppellant as aforesaid in para-1, 5. Shri K.A, Ansari, learned Senior Advocate for the appellant has asstoiiled the conviction of the appellcyit on the ground that the evidence ted by the prosecutjon failed to establish the guilt under Section-161 of IPC and Sections-5(l)(d) & Section-5p)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 . It was contended that the testimony of the comptainont Samaru Sin9h PW-1 did not establish the factum of ctemand or acceptflBice of the bribe by the oppellont. It was at?urKr further argued that the moistermind of the trap «oyp*- scribe Kri^ina Kumar Pandey PW-6 had falsely implicated the appelbnt. It was 'forther contended that the evidence led by the prosecution did not rule out the possibilit/ that the currency notes were accepted by the appeltant as an amount of Takabi for which the appellant was about to yye receipt. Tehsildar Shri Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 had also stated in paro-11 that receipt book was lying on the table of the appeltant. On the other hand, Shri U.K.S.Chflndel, learned Panel Lawyer argued in aipport of the impugned judgment. Having heard rival contentions, I have perused the record. The complainant Samaru Singh PW-1 at who^ instance, the trap is alleged to have been organized 3^ stated that a revenue ccxse pendin9 in the Court of Tehsildar, Katghora and the Officer had dem<mcled Rs.100/- which he had kept on the table of the Officer. After doing so, he set there for an hour aaid thereafter went out. There is not even an iota of materkxl in his testimony which would 90 to show that the appellont had made any demand of bribe from him or that he had tendered two currency notes of Rs.50/- each to tfie appellant which were accepted and kept inside the full pant pocket of the oppellant. This witness was not declared hostile by 1+ie prosecution, The statement of Sanwru Singh PW-1 thus demolishes the very edifice of the prosecution case. Krishna Kumar Pondey PW-6 is the scribe who had prepared the complaint Ex.P-1 <md got thumb impression of Samaru Sin9h affixed thereon. He had admitted in para-5 that he Had arronged a trap in 10-11 oases and intended that the Tehsilcbr and the Clerk both should be tropped. In para-6, he has further contended that D.S.P. Shri 6.K.Tiwari PW-10 had asked phim to write the application. This clearly 9088 to ^iow that the comptaint Ex.P-8 was4bc mastermind/^f-riw^ D.S.P. Shri G.K.Tiwari PW-10 and scribe Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6. Samaru Sin9h PW-1 is an illitenxte person and it appears that he was simply a pawn for fulfilling the eyjl designs of Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6. .3^- 8. Shri Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6 has admitt'ed in para- 4 that althou9h he had accompanied Samaru Singh to the Tehsil Office yet he remained in the jeep and had no knowled9e as to what tronspired in the Tehsil Office after the trap was or9onized. In cross-examination para-7 this witness has stated that the demand for bribe was made few doys prior to the makin9 of the application Ex.P-8 on 05-07-1982 whereas Ex.P-8 shows that the demand was macte by the Teshsildtar on 04-07-1982. It also shows that Tehsildar had asked Samaru Sin9h PW-1 to give Rs.2,000/- to the Clerk. However, Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6 has admitted in para-7 that this portion CIB" to UB")of the comptaint was erroneously written. The proceedings in Revenue Case No.186 vide ExP-12 shows that these proceedings were drawn on the complaint of Samaru Sin9h that one Kisun was exploitin9 the poor* tribals. There is no proyer for allotment of oaiy tank on lease. It further shows that the last date of hearing was 26-06-1982 and Samaru Singh was oisked to aibmit a copy of his complaint on 09-07-1982 which was the next date. If at all, a ctemand of Rs.KK)/- was macte by -Hie oppeltant. it would have been either on 26-06-1982 when Samaru Singh oppeared before him or prior to that. It does not appeal to reason that the complainant would come to 9'fc1 Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6 on 05-07-1982 to request him to or9<xnize a trap, This inference js fortified by the testimony of Samaru Singh. This creates a serious dent in the prosecution case and renders the prosecution story doubtful that the appellant had demanded bribe from Samaru Singh or that Samaru Singh had requested for arranging a trop, vide ExP-8. It c^pears that in furtheronce of the evil design of Krishna Kumar Pandey PW-6 a false complaint Ex.P-8 wcxs drafted by him, upon which thumb impression of Samaru Singh was got affixed. L..^' 10. Kripal Singh PW-4. Clerk in Tehsil Office, Kat9horo has stated in para-3 that in the windows of the room where the oppellcxnt sat, carbon paper had been poisted on the gtasses and nobody coutd peep in from the outside. He hc^ also admitted that during the proceedinQS he was not present. He also deposed that receipt book which was ^zed, was the current receipt book. Mohit Ram PW-3 has stated that he had taken some Takabj loan and had gwen some worwy to 5amaru Singh and asked him to brin9 receipt thereof. Later, on bein9 osked Sainaru Singh told him that the work got qaoiled. This finds corroboration from the testimony of Tehsildar Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 who has stated -Hiat a receipt book wcxs found on the table of the dppeltant. A defence was laid by the accused-appellant in the cross- 1,1 B 1 8 examination of D.S.P. &.K.Tiwari, PW-10 that receipt book had been taken out from the rack. This witness however ctenied that the appelkmt had said that he was about to make a receipt for the amount given by Samaru. In view of the facts and circumstonces of this case, it cannot be ruled out that Samaru Singh had given Rs.100/- to the oppellont towards Takabi loan of MohitRamPW-3. 11. Tehsildar Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 has stated in para-10 that immediately after receiving the signal from Samaru Sin9h, he went inside with D.S.P. ©.K.Tiwari PW-10 caught hold of the hands of -the oppellant and thereafter the appellant took out the notes from his pocket. This testimony is sharply contradicted by the D.S.P. e.K.Tiwari PW-10 by statin9 that Tehsildar was not present durin9 the whole proceedin9. In his entire testimony, D.S.P. ^.K.Tiwari PW-10 did not state that Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 was present during the trop proceedings. 12. Having thus considered the evidence led by the prosecution in its entirety, the following points emerge:- (A) There is no evidence to ^iow that the appellant had demamded a bribe of Rs.100/- from Samaru Singh PW-1. 1(0 1^ (B) Samaru Singh PW-1 did not support -tiie prosecution story at all and wo^ not declared hostile, His testimony completely negatived the story of demand and acceptance of bribe by the appellant. (C) Mohit ftam PW-3 deposed that he had given some morwy to Samaru Singh for paywent of Takabi lo<xn ound asked him to bring the receipt. The testimony of Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 ond the statement in para-9 by ©XTiwariPW-10 also did not rul®out this possibility that the appellant was about to give a receipt for the money given to him by Samaru Singh. (D) There is absolutefy no evidence to show that the appeltant had accepted an amount of Rs.100/- from Samaru Singh PW-1 as bribe. (E) The presence of Anil Kumar Verma PW-2 at the time of acceptance of ajrrency notes by the appellant is rendered doubtful in view of the testimony of 6.K.Tiwari PW-10. (F) The testimony of 6.K.Tiwari PW-10 that he saw and heard conversation from the window is also rendered unreliable in view of the admission by Kripal Singh PW-4. Clerk in Tehsil Office that the glasses of all the windows had carbon paper pasted on it and no one could peep in from out side. (G) It comnot be ruled out that the trop was the mastermind of Kri^ina Kumar Pandey PW-6 who to further his evil designs used Saniaru Sin9h, PW-1 an illiterate person as a Pawn. (H) The possibilit/ that the appeltant had accepted RsJOO/- from Samaru Singh 10 towards Takabi loan and was about to 9ive receipt for the same, while he was caught by D.S.P. ©.K.TjwariPW-10 comnot be ruled out. 13. In view of the above facts and circumstcnce of the ccxse, the conviction of the appelloint under Section-161 of IPC and Section-5(l)(d) <& Section-5 (^(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 and the ^antence awarded thereunder deserves to be set aside. 14. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction of •t+ie oppellant under Section-161 of IPC and Section- 5(l)(d) & Section-5 0(2)f of the Prevention of C'ormption Act, 1947<md the sentence awarded thereunder are set asjde. The appellant is acquitt'ed, Fine, if paid, shall be refunded to the appellant. Sd/- Dilip Raosaheb Deshmukh Judge t