Madhya Pradesh High Court
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh Judgement ... on 8 May, 2014
Author: Vimla Jain
Bench: Vimla Jain
HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR
Criminal Revision No.1832/2013
Pradeep Kumar Tiwari....................................................................Petitioner
Versus
The State of Madhya Pradesh
through Lokayukt, Bhopal.........................................................Respondent
For the petitioner : Shri Surendra Singh, Senior Advocate, with
Shri Ashish Tiwari, Advocate.
For the respondent: Shri Aditya Adhikari, Advocate.
******
Present: HONOURABLE SHRI JUSTICE AJIT SINGH
HONOURABLE SMT. JUSTICE VIMLA JAIN
******
ORDER
(8.5.2014) The following order of the Court was passed by :
Ajit Singh, J. By this petition the petitioner has prayed for his discharge of the charges under section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
2. The case of prosecution was that co-accused persons namely Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni were respectively posted as Mining Inspector and Officer-in-Charge of the flying squad in district Raisen. And on 22.4.2011 they intercepted a truck bearing registration no.MP04/GA-2129 owned by Apollo Construction & Infrastructure Company. Alleging that sand loaded in the truck had been illegally mined, both of them demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000/- from Manager Fransisco Mascerenas of the company. They also seized the truck and placed it within the precincts of Police Station Chiklod.
23. Since Fransisco Mascerenas did not wish to pay the bribe, he lodged a report on 25.4.2011 with the Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt. A trap was thereafter arranged and on 26.4.2011 both Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni were caught red-handed accepting bribe of Rs.25,000/-. They, however, prepared a defence by writing letters to the effect that Rs.25,000/- was, in fact, paid as compounding fee in respect to illegal mining and the Lokayukt had wrongly seized the amount. These letters were received by the then Mining Officer D. R. Yaduvanshi who, in turn, started a note sheet on 1.6.2011 that it would be proper to intimate Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, and other authorities regarding the incident. The note sheet was sent to the then Collector M. L. Meena. On 2.6.2011 the Collector ordered that a letter to this effect be prepared and placed before him. D. R. Yaduvanshi, as directed, prepared a letter on 10.6.2011 but the Collector suggested certain changes in that letter.
4. On 15.6.2011 D. R. Yaduvanshi was transferred from Raisen to Bhopal and the Collector was also sent for training to another place. Additional Collector, Vidisha, was therefore transferred to officiate as Collector Raisen.
5. On 18.7.2011 the petitioner joined as Assistant Mining Officer, Raisen. On the same day Madhav Prasad Bisen submitted a second letter addressed to the Collector wherein he reiterated the defence taken by him in his earlier letter. This letter was forwarded to the Deputy Collector who marked the same to the petitioner. On 28.7.2011 the petitioner drafted a letter addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, wherein he stated that Rs.25,000/- accepted by Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni was a compounding fee in respect to illegal mining of sand and that amount be released so that it be deposited in the Treasury. Later, the petitioner in his another letter dated 26.8.2011 addressed to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, stated that Madhav 3 Prasad Bisen had telephonically informed on 26.4.2011 regarding his visit to the Mining Directorate for the illegal transportation case.
6. The Special Police Establishment investigated the correctness of information given by the petitioner in both these letters and found the same to be false. The Investigating Officer collected the evidence to the effect that no such information by Madhav Prasad Bisen was given to Mining Officer D. R. Yaduvanshi. D. R. Yaduvanshi has also denied in his statement about any oral information having been given to him by Madhav Prasad Bisen regarding his visit to the Mining Directorate on 26.4.2011 for the illegal transportation case. The Investigating Officer has even found that no case of illegal transportation of sand was registered and, therefore, the question of accepting Rs.25,000/- as compounding fee by Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni does not arise. The Special Police Establishment, therefore, made the petitioner as accused for knowingly giving false evidence and making a false statement to show the bribe money of Rs.25,000/- as a legal tender. The Special Police Establishment has also alleged that petitioner had deliberately given false information to screen offenders and abetted them to accept bribe.
7. The petitioner at the stage of framing of charge argued before the trial court that he has not committed any offence and he be discharged. But the trial court by the impugned order has framed charges for offences under section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code against them. It is in this background the petitioner has filed the present petition.
8. Section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 reads as under:
10. Punishment for abetment by public servant of offences defined in Section 8 or 9.- Whoever, being a public servant, in respect of whom either of the 4 offences defined in Section 8 or Section 9 is committed, abets the offence, whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of that abetment, shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than six months but which may extend to five years and shall also be liable to fine.
9. Admittedly, on the date when Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni took the bribe, the petitioner was not posted at Raisen. Instead he was posted in another district. He had also joined duty as Assistant Mining Officer, Raisen, only on 18.7.2011 i.e. more than 21/2 months after the bribe was taken. And it is not even the prosecution case that petitioner either instigated or abetted Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni directly or indirectly to accept the bribe. The offence under section 10 is, therefore, not made out against the petitioner.
10. Sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code read as under:
193. Punishment for false evidence.- Whoever intentionally gives false evidence in any stage of a judicial proceeding, or fabricates false evidence for the purpose of being used in any stage of a judicial proceeding, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine, and whoever intentionally gives or fabricates false evidence in any other case, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine.
Explanation 1.- A trial before a Court-martial is a judicial proceeding.
Explanation 2.- An investigation directed by law preliminary to a proceeding before a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
Explanation 3.- An investigation directed by a Court of Justice according to law, and conducted under the authority of a Court of Justice, is a stage of a judicial 5 proceeding, though that investigation may not take place before a Court of Justice.
199. False statement made in declaration which is by law receivable as evidence.- Whoever, in any declaration made or subscribed by him, which declaration any Court of Justice, or any public servant or other person, is bound or authorised by law to receive as evidence of any fact, makes any statement which is false, and which he either knows or believes to be false or does not believe to be true, touching any point material to the object for which the declaration is made or used, shall be punished in the same manner as if he gave false evidence.
201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender. Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false.
11. The petitioner is senior in rank to the posts of Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni. In the charge sheet there is ample evidence to show that both of them were caught red-handed while accepting bribe. And there is no material to indicate that any case of illegal transportation of sand was registered for which compounding fee of Rs.25,000/- was ordered. But yet the petitioner sent an official letter dated 28.7.2011 to the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, intentionally giving false evidence that the amount was a legal tender as compounding fee and the same be released so that it may be deposited in the Treasury. The petitioner also made a false statement in his another letter dated 26.8.2011 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, to the effect that Madhav Prasad Bisen had informed the then Mining Officer D. R. Yaduvanshi on telephone regarding his visit to the Mining Department on 26.4.2011 for the illegal transportation case. As already mentioned above, D. R. Yaduvanshi has categorically denied in his statement giving of such information to him by Madhav Prasad Bisen. Even Khare, Deputy Director, Mining, has stated that the so-called inspection-
6raid conducted by Madhav Prasad Bisen and Basant Soni was without any authority. There is, thus, prima facie evidence on record to show that the petitioner has deliberately given false evidence and made false statement to help his peers in converting the bribe money to that of a legal tender. The offences under sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code are, therefore, clearly attracted against the petitioner. We accordingly affirm that the charges of offences under sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code have been rightly framed against the petitioner.
12. In the result, the petitioner is discharged of the offence under section 10 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 but he shall face the trial for charges under sections 193, 199 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
13. The petition is partly allowed to the extent mentioned above.
(AJIT SINGH) (SMT. VIMLA JAIN) JUDGE JUDGE ps