Lokayukt for the applicant.
Shri Shashank Upadhyaya, counsel for the respondent.
Heard on leave application.
The State has preferred an application for grant of leave to appeal against the judgment dated 18.10.2014 passed by the Special Judge under Prevention of Corruption Act, Narsinghpur in Special Case No.4 of 2013 whereby, the respondent has been acquitted from the charge of Section 7 read with Section 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The prosecution's case in short is that on the date of incident the respondent Khoobchand Chouksey was a Supervisor/Reader in the Office of Tahsildar. The complainant Bhuwani Gond (PW8) had moved an application for partition of his revenue land situated at Village Andhihari and a revenue case was pending for partition. According to the complainant the respondent demanded a sum of Rs.5000/- to place the case file before Tahsildar and to get it decided. The complainant went to the Office of S.P.E, Jabalpur and filed an application so that trap may be arranged. Inspector Rajiv Gupta (PW11) gave him a voice recorder to record the talk relating to demand of bribe. On 30.10.2012, the complainant Bhuwani gave the voice recorder back to the Inspector Rajiv Gupta. A transcript of the talk was prepared. Thereafter, on producing a sum of Rs.5000/- by the complainant Bhuwani Gond (PW8) phenolphthalein was coted on those notes and notes were kept in the pocket of complainant Bhuwani with the direction that those notes were to be given to the respondent. A memo of preliminary proceedings was prepared. On request the Collector, Narsinghpur had sent Shri J.P. Nigam, Assistant Supply Officer (PW1) and Shri R. N.
Vishwakarma, Sub Divisional Officer (PW2) to witness the trap.
According to the prosecution, the bribe was given to the respondent and he was trapped. When his fingers were washed with alkaline solution, the colour of the solution became pink. The memo of entire proceedings was prepared and case was registered. Various solutions collected through preliminary proceedings and final proceedings were sent for forensic science analysis and in report Ex.P/39 of Forensic Science Laboratory at Article 'C' i.e. in the solution which was obtained by washing the hands of the respondent sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein was found present.
After considering the submissions made by the learned counsel for the parties, it is apparent that the complainant Bhuwani (PW8) has turned hostile. However, the trap could be proved by an authorized witnesses but, the authorized witnesses Shri J.P. Nigam (PW1) and Shri R. N.
Vishwakarma (PW2) did not state that currency notes were obtained in the hands of the respondent. According to Shri J.P. Nigam (PW1) the currency notes were in a drawer of the table and Constable Shukla took such amount from the drawer. Shri R. N. Vishwakarma (PW2) has accepted in para 12 that all the notes were found on the floor and thereafter, Constable Shukla took up those notes and gave to the respondent. The most important fact is that Inspector Alok Trivedi (PW6) who accompanied the trap party has also accepted that when he entered in the room there was no currency notes in the hand of the respondent. The notes were found lying on the floor and those were picked up by Shri J.P. Nigam whereas, Shri J.P. Nigam did not accept that he picked up the notes. The authorized officers are provided in a trap so that its authenticity may be proved. When the authorized officer having a rank of Gazetted Officer did not corroborate the testimony of the Investigation Officer Shri Rajiv Gupta then it cannot be said that trap was completed and the complainant Bhuvani gave a sum of Rs.5000/-. The learned Special Prosecutor has invited attention of this Court to the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of Hazarilal Vs. State of Delhi [(1980) 2 SCC 390] in which it is held that fact of trap can be accepted on the testimony of the police officer who laid the trap without any corroboration. In the present case the authorized witnesses have contradicted the testimony of Rajiv Gupta and hence due to difference of factual position, the judgment passed in case of Hazarilal (supra) can not be applied on the present case.
The learned Special Prosecutor gave his stress on the report of Forensic Science Laboratory that the solution relating to washing the fingers of the respondent was found containing phenolphthalein and therefore, the respondent had received the amount of bribe. If, when the trap party entered in the room and hand of the respondent would have been washed immediately thereafter, then such report could be in favour of the prosecution. When Shri R.N. Vishwakarma has accepted that initially when fingers of the respondent Khubchand were dipped in the alkaline solution colour of the solution was not changed materially and it was noticed that he did not receive the bribe and thereafter, notes lying on the floor were picked up and dipped in that solution and thereafter, the solution became pink. Hence, looking to the evidence given by the authorized officers, it appears that the solution which was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory with the text that it was a solution received from washing of hand of the respondent was incorrect. Only it was the solution in which the currency notes lying on the floor were dipped. The Peon Nirmal Kumar Patel (PW4) has stated that the respondent no.2 complained that as to whey he was giving any amount to him though the Peon was declared hostile but, after considering the entire evidence of reputed independent witnesses viz.
Shri J.P. Nigam and Shri R. N. Vishwakarma, the testimony of the Investigation Officer Shri Rajiv Gupta is not at all believable. It was not proved beyond doubt that the respondent has received any bribe.
So far as the talk which took place between the respondent and the complainant Bhuwani is concerned, Bhuwani did not support that the talk took place between him and the respondent. Therefore, it was for the prosecution to take the sample of voice of the respondent and to get it matched from any standard laboratory otherwise, recording of voice of the respondent with the complainant Bhuwani has no much evidentiary value. The learned counsel for the applicant placed his reliance upon the judgment passed by the Apex Court in the case of N. Rama Raddy Vs. V. V. Giri [(1970) 2 SCC 340) which is related to the admissibility of tape recorded conversation. In the present case admissibility of such document is not under challenge.
The trial Court has rightly found that the prosecution could not prove that the respondent demanded any bribe from the complainant.
There is no reason to interfere in the judgment of acquittal passed by the trial Court. There is no reason to grant leave. Consequently, leave application filed by the State is hereby dismissed.
(Shantanu Kemkar) (N.K. Gupta) Judge Judge (SHANTANU KEMKAR) JUDGE (N.K. GUPTA) JUDGE
Comments