State of M.P. vs Sunil Choudhary and Another

This order shall dispose of an application filed on behalf of the State of Madhya Pradesh through Special Police Establishment (Lokayukt), Ujjain u/s 378(3) of CrPC for grant of leave to appeal against the order dated 31.1.2013 passed by the trial Court in Special Criminal Case No. 2/2011 whereby, the respondents Sunil and Kulvinder have been acquitted for the offences charged against them under sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. Briefly stating the facts of the case as detailed in the impugned order in paragraphs 3, 4 and 5 are as under:

On the basis of the aforesaid investigation, the challan was filed against the respondents Sunil and Kulvinder before the Special Judge. The respondents denied the charges. In their reply u/s 313 of CrPC, they have stated that they were falsely implicated.

From the aforesaid, it is seen that initiation of these proceedings and the allegation of complaint had been lodged by the complainant with ASI Sunil Choudhary regarding bribe to be taken for taking out Tata Sumo vehicle.

The trial Court on the basis of evidence which came on record has not found favour with the case of the prosecution, in as much as no complaint was pending with ASI Sunil Choudhary who in fact was not ASI with the police which could have made out a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act. Tape regarding version was also not admissible in this case. Paragraphs 77, 78, 79, 80 and 83 are relevant which are reproduced here as under:

Moreover, the nature of the transaction appears to be recovery of instalments with respect to a loan transaction. Paragraphs 88 and 89 are relevant for the aforesaid purpose which are reproduced here as under:

There is another aspect of the matter. The offence under sections 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) read with section 8 of the Prevention of Corruption Act is made out only when the illegal gratification is received by a public servant for something which he has done or he could have done for the purpose for whom he had not received illegal gratification. No such thing has come on record in this case. Sections 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are reproduced here as under:

13(1). A public servant is said to commit the offence of criminal misconduct,--

(a) .....

(b) .....

(c) .....

(d) if he,--

(i) by corrupt or illegal means, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(ii) by abusing his position as a public servant, obtains for himself or for any other person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage; or

(iii) while holding office as a public servant, obtains for any person any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage without any public interest; or

13(2). Any public servant who commits criminal misconduct shall be punishable with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than one year but which may extend to seven years and shall also be liable to fine.

As discussed above, neither any work was pending with the accused Sunil pertaining to the complainant nor he was in a position to do anything for the complainant for which Sunil wanted any illegal gratification. Thus, neither a basic purpose of giving the bribe has been established nor an actual giving of bribe has been satisfied by the prosecution before the trial Court. As such, it is not a fit case where the applicant was entitled to seek any leave to file an appeal. Accordingly, the application is dismissed.