Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

9. Heard the learned advocates for the parties and perused the record. It appears from the judgment that learned Special Judge has specifically made attempt to frame the charge in connection with the demand and acceptance. I have perused oral evidence of P.W. 1 complainant at Exhibit 11 and it appears from the evidence that on 22.4.1997, the appellant came to the shop of the complainant and told that the complaint was to give Rs.15000/- to him for doing his work. As per conversation between the complainant and appellant, Rs.5000/- was already paid to the appellant by the complainant. On 30.4.1997, the appellant made phone call to the complainant and told about remaining amount and for that the complainant shown his inability to pay such a huge amount, however, the complainant was ready to pay Rs.3000/- to the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant lodged complaint before the ACB Office against the appellant. The complainant also stated that after completing formalities, he along with panch No.1 as well as ACB team reached at the shop of the complainant. The appellant demanded money in the presence of panch No.1 and same was accepted by the appellant. The ACB persons recovered the money from the appellant. It is reflected from the evidence of the complainant that the appellant accepted the amount by his right hand and counted the money by his both hands and when the appellant tried to put the money in his pocket, the ACB person caught the appellant red handed with trap amount. The stains of anthracene powder were found on both the hands of the appellant as well as on the pocket of shirt and also on stick of the appellant. Even in the cross-examination, the complainant has categorically stated about the demand and acceptance on the part of the appellant. Even the complainant was interested about success of trap. From the oral evidence of P.W.2, it appears that he has very well explained the facts of the case and also the demand made by the accused from him. This witness categorically stated about the entire incident and he stated that the appellant demanded the money towards illegal gratification and the complainant gave Rs.3000/- to the appellant and also the appellant asked the complaiant about remaining amount. This witness also stated about stains of anthracene powder on the hands, shirt and stick of the appellant. This witness also made signature in the panchnama. By the oral evidence, it is also reflected that this witness is not selected witness but experienced person. In the cross-examination, this witness also admitted that he was in the shop of the complainant and the appellant accepted the trap amount in his presence, but he had no knowledge about the work for which the amount was given to the appellant. From the evidence of P.W.3 who was District Development Officer, it appears that after properly studying the papers, he passed order of sanction to prosecute against the appellant. Therefore, the sanction cannot be said to be invalid or improper. I have persued the oral evidence of P.W.4, who acted as panch No.2 for carrying out trap. He stated same facts which have been narrated by the P.W.1 and P.W.2 and from the cross-examination, nothing is come out that the appellant had not demanded trap amount and accepted the same. I have also perused the oral evidence of P.W.5 and P.W.7. I have minutely perused the oral evidence of P.W.6, who was P.S.I., ACB Office, Nadiad, wherein he stated that he explained very well about the trap to the complainant and panchas and he stated about the stains of anthracene powder found from the hands of the appellant. I have also perused the seizure memo, wherein the contents of three currency notes of Rs.500/- and 15 currency notes of Rs.100/- are stated and those notes were applied with anthracene powder. The complaint is corroborated with the evidence and therefore, this Court has no reason to disbelieve the case of the prosecution. I have taken into consideration the charge at Exhibit 6 and the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the appellant simply denied the version of the prosecution, but in support of his case, he was unable to assail the say of the prosecution. The contents of panchnama are corroborated with the complaint and therefore also, prima facie, it is proved that the appellant demanded money from the complainant and same was accepted by him. ACB persons recovered the said amount from the appellant, when the appellant tried to put in his pocket of shirt. The appellant was caught red handed by the ACB person. Therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the appellant being public servant, promised the complainant to provide him the order regarding entry of stay order and for which the appellant demanded Rs.15000/- from the complainant. As per conversation, the complainant gave Rs.5000/- and thereafter, for remaining amount, the complainant was to give Rs.3000/-, and at that time, complaint was lodged before the ACB office and thereafter, trap was carried out and the appellant was caught with currency notes applied with anthracene powder, by the ACB person.

11. In the case registered under the provisions of Prevention of Corruption Act, it is the duty of the Court to consider (1) whether the demand is fully proved and established against the appellant (2) recovery from the possession of the appellant is made and in the result, recovery was made from the appellant and (3) presumption. I have also considered the principal Res Ipsa Loquitur and here in this case, the witnesses examined before the trial Court have fully supported the case of the prosecution and there was no denial about demand made by the appellant, by any of the witnesses, and therefore, this Court is of considered view that the appellant being public servant, demanded money from the complainant in presence of P.W.1 and he accepted the same and he was caught red handed by the ACB person and committed the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1) (d) and 13 (1) (gh) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. I have perused the judgment and order passed by the learned Special Judge, and I am in total agreement with the reasons assigned by the learned Special Judge.