AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
Conviction,Sentence
Under Section 7 of the PC Act,"Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of
Rs.2,000 with default stipulation
Under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of
the PC Act","Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of
Rs.2,000 with default stipulation
Both the jail sentences are directed to run
concurrently
Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. A panchnama (Ex.P11) was prepared there and a tape recorder with a blank cassette was given to this witness with a direction",
to record his conversation with the accused persons regarding bribe. This witness further deposed that first he met with the Appellant and told him,
that bribe of Rs.8,000 was excessive for him and he was able to give only Rs.1,500. On this, the Appellant consented to accept Rs.1,500 and asked",
this witness to come with the bribe money after 3-4 days. Thereafter, this witness met with co-accused Fagnuram Bhagat. On this, co-accused",
Fagnuram Bhagat also demanded bribe from him. According to this witness, he recorded his conversation took place with the Appellant and co-",
accused Fagnuram Bhagat regarding bribe. On 27.6.1998, this witness went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur. There,",
the conversation recorded by this witness in the tape recorder was heard. A transcription (Ex.P12) of the conversation was prepared. The tape,
recorder and the cassette were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). This witness further deposed that thereafter he returned to his village. After,
arranging money for giving as bribe, he again went to the office of Superintendent of Police, Lokayukta, Jagdalpur and submitted a written complaint",
(Ex.P1). He also produced 1 currency note in the denomination of Rs.500 and 10 currency notes each in the denomination of Rs.100, total Rs.1,500",
for trap proceeding. The currency notes were smeared with phenolphthalein powder. Thereafter, a trap proceeding was demonstrated to this witness.",
He was again given a tape recorder with a blank cassette to record conversation of bribe to be taken place between this witness and the Appellant.,
This witness further deposed that at the time of trap, he went to the office of the Appellant with the tape recorder. On seeing a gathering there, he",
waited there for sometime. Thereafter, he met with the Appellant and started the tape recorder. On being demanded bribe, he took out the tainted",
money from the pocket of his shirt and gave the same to the Appellant to which the Appellant kept in his pocket and told him that his work will be,
done. Thereafter, on being given a signal by this witness, the trap party entered the office and caught the Appellant. The Appellant took out the bribe",
money from his pocket and kept the same on table.,
Hands of the Appellant, his full pant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different solutions of sodium carbonate on which",
colour of the solutions turned in pink. This witness further deposed that he returned the tape recorder with the recorded cassette to the trap party.,
Thereafter, a transcription (Ex.P6) of the recorded conversation was prepared.",
Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) also deposed that after submitting complaint (Ex.P10) by Complainant Jairam Komra, he had given him",
a tape recorder with a blank cassette and had prepared a panchnama (Ex.P11) thereof. On 27.6.1998, Complainant Jairam Komra returned the tape",
recorder and the cassette. Both were seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P13). The cassette was heard and a transcription (Ex.P12) of the recorded,
conversation was prepared. The transcription (Ex.P12) was prepared by Head Constable Ramlal Gangesh (PW8). Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) has also,
supported the statement of S.R. Yuvne (PW12). There is nothing in the cross-examination of Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), Investigating",
Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) and Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved on the above point. I have,
perused the transcription (Ex.P12). Ex.P12 shows that the Complainant had offered a bribe of Rs.1,500 to which the Appellant had agreed to accept.",
As stated by Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), thereafter, he made a written complaint (Ex.P1) in the office of Superintendent of Police,",
Lokayukta, Jagdalpur.",
Both panch witnesses T.K. Dongre (PW1) and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4) have supported the entire case of the prosecution and deposed according,
to the case of the prosecution. They categorically stated that in the office of Lokayukta, when they met with the Complainant, at that time, they",
verified the contents of the complaint from the Complainant. The above statement of the panch witnesses is not duly rebutted during their cross-,
examination. Thus, from the above statement of the panch witnesses and the transcription (Ex.P12), initial demand of bribe of Rs.1,500 by the",
Appellant is duly established.,
As stated by Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), at the time of trap also, he had recorded the conversation took place between him and the",
Appellant in the tape recorder provided by the Lokayukta office. Transcription thereof is Ex.P6. I have also perused Ex.P6. Relevant contents of,
Ex.P6 are as under:,
From perusal of the above conversation (Ex.P6), it is also clear that at the time of trap also, the Appellant had agreed to accept the bribe of",
Rs.1,500.",
With regard to recovery of bribe money also, Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne (PW12) categorically deposed that on getting a signal from the",
Complainant, when they entered the office of the Appellant and inquired from him, he told that he had kept the tainted money in the left pocket of his",
full pant. The tainted money was recovered from him. His hands, full pant and the recovered tainted currency notes were dipped into different",
solutions of sodium carbonate on which colour of the solutions turned into pink. Complainant Jairam Komra (PW2), both panch witnesses T.K.",
Dongre (PW1) and Badri Sukhdeve (PW4) and other members of the trap party, namely, Constable Ram Sevak Sinha (PW5), Head Constable",
Ramlal Gangesh (PW8) and Constable Bhuvan Mandal (PW11) have also supported the above statement of Investigating Officer S.R. Yuvne,
(PW12). There is nothing in the cross-examination of all these witnesses on the basis of which their statements could be disbelieved.,
From the above discussion, I find that the prosecution has clearly proved its case of demand, acceptance and recovery of the bribe money against",
the Appellant. Thus, the finding of the Trial Court is in accordance with the evidence available on record.",
In the result, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal is, therefore, dismissed.",