State v. Ram Gopal Patel And ANR.

-V ^'^•^•'"'-vW^C^^'L.-^\. L. ^•^•^•t--^ <- ^•O'^ ^-

IN THE HIGH COURT''0£'<JUDICATURE.XT-J7BALPUR

M'.Cr .C ..N0 .^5"^'7 .df •l99i ^iUy-^ ^^U^^ ^.

Crirainal Appeal No. \ ^ .S^. of 1997 App&llant s ;State' of M».P^ Respondents ,.a -V/Ss "-. loRam .'GQpai. Patei s/o^annalai"' PaA@i^ Caste Kurmi, aged 34 years,.

srillage- •Panjad., Bistt^Jabalpur,^ '••f'^ !

At prese!?ifc;.&gen^, ''Bhumi. 'Vi-kas.Bar^ /| •Mu-ng^ri.- \: •••.-, ..'; :•••" .'".•••• ^.- •' •'^':.-''/.^^^^ '2 ^Jitend^a Kishor^. Va'ishnav^ . ^0/ ^^ Shyamdas Vaishnav, Ca&te Valsisihnav^ aged •:^5 'years-,' S?lllage Chirch^ •\...\'" ^;.^.

. ^ .,,.•.• ,...

'.

,:;. ','

•;.". ;• _'1 '„ ••••_,^ , ^"..,- Post, Chhui"Khadan, ..Distt^Ra.j'rxand-..'^ gaon,.. At: present.. Mukam- Be-al.a?^^ -^^I fl^^ ^ "2-s.^-^> .

OR-^.^^^^^^^^^^^ €:.^^.

"

•>«. '3»e,»»st^^y k •^s ^y Bhuml .Vi-kas BanM,' pande.r4a»- ^: ;^-';,/-"../;

Distt* .Bil.aspur^-""f'";- •:' :'sl •..: '''-••';..':\:)^.;'.:?'

^££^£^S£M-^2S-iSSS£^SCL.^E^^J!Z^--ll§iM:^;.'^-E^^ .'/T. :"^^1 CR3EMINAL__APPB&L_^^S^78(l.^^ffi^'P.C. &GAINST TOB ._ACQUI3' OF RESPONBENTS/ACCUSED, ^ 'v:^"^- '••J

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH: BILASPUR Cr.A.No.l836ofl997 APPELLANT:

State ofM.P.

Versus

RESPONDENTS:

Ram Gopal Patel & another POST FOR TUDGMENT ON Z(/'^DECEMBER. 2014 Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Cr. A.No.1836 of 1997 APPELLANT:

StateofM.P.

Vetsus RESPONDENTS:

Ram Gopal Patel & another

Present:

Shri O.P. Sahu, Govt. Advocate fQr the State/appellant. Shri Shailendra Sharma, counsel fbt respondent No.l. Shn Malay Shrivastava, counsel fbr respondent No.2. T U D GM ENT (DeUvered on A(J±December,2014) PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA. T.

1. This appeal against acquittal has been preferred by the State challenging the judgrrient of acquittal passed by the Special Judge (PC Act) BUaspur in Special Criminal Case No.11/92 whereby the respondents have been acquitted of the chatges under Secdons 5(l)(d) readwith Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short (the Act') and under Section 161oftheIPQ

2. At the relevant time, respondent No.l Ram Gopal Patel was working as agent of the Land Development Bank, Mungeli whereas respondent No.2 Jitendra was posted as Valuer. Complainant Basant Pandey had met accused Ram Gopal for obtaining loan for tubewell in the land belonging to his wife for which Ram Gopal had sent Jitendra Vaishnav on 14.5.1986 to

value the prqperty of the complainant.

Valuation report was submitted by him on 20.5.1986.

3. It is alleged that the complainant had opted for loan and had completed the formalities including submission of the valuadon report by Jitendra.

However, when the complainant met accused Ratn Gopal, he informed that there are some objecdons in his case and heshouldnieetjitendtatosortouttheproblem. The complainant wanted to withdraw his loan applicadon, however, Ram. Gopal asked him not to get annoyed and assured that he would convince Jitendra tochange the report so that the complainant's work is accomplished. 3 days prior to 13.6.1986, Ram, Gopal infonned the complainant that his work is cotnpleted and some amount is to be paid to the valuer, however, the complainant avoided the issue. On 13.6.86, both the accused tnet the complaihant at Takhatpur and asked the complainant to clear the account by evening.

Jitendra threatened that if the aniount is not paid, he would submit a negative report. The complainant thereafter lodged a compliant with the Vigilance Department at 2 pm. on 13.6.86 on which a ttap team was consdtuted including NK Sahariya (PW-11) and RD Diwan (not examined) as Panch witnesses. Phenolphthalein test was conducted for demonsttadon to the complainant and Panch witnesses. The complainant was instructed to signal the ttap team after payment of the bribe amount.

4. The tocap team reached Takhatput at 5.30 pm. The complaiaant got down and the peon of the Bank, who was instructed by

Ram Gopal to accompany the complainant from Takhatpur to Mungeli, sat on the motorcycle along with one membei: of the trap team and the complainant. When they started for Mungeli, the ticap teani followed them. At 6.30-6.45 pm, the compkinant and the peon of the Bank went to the house of Ram Gopal where both the accused were sitdng. After consuming tea, both the accused took the complainant to another room inside the house and .asked about the bribe amount, on which the cQmt)lainaht handed over Rs.1,000/- fo Ram Gopal, which was kept by hun in his pocket.

The complainant came out and signaled the ttap team whereupon the trap team, entered the house of Ram Gopal; caught hold of hini and conducted phenolphthalein test, which was positive.

Rs.1,000/- was recovered from his trouser's pocket, whlch was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was posidve. The pocket ofthe trouser was also subjected to phenolphthalein test, which was also positive.

5. After recording statenaents of witnesses and after obtaining sancdon, the charge sheetwas filed.

6. In course of trial, the prosecution examined 12 witnesses to bring home the charges.

The trial Court has acquitted the accused petsons ofboth the chatges.

7. Leamed State counsel would submit that the prosecudon has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the judgment of acquittal is based on perverse finding, therefote, it deserves to be set aside.

8. Per contra, leamed counsel for the respondents would submit that the judgment of acquittal does not caU for any interference.

9. I have heard leamed counsel fot the pardes at length and perused the record.

10.The quesdon to be considered is - whether the prosecution has established the demand and acceptance of illegal gratiflcadon by the accused persons?

11.PW-1 Khalil Khan is a witness, who was working as cycle repairet in the cycle store bek»nging to the complainant. He says that one day both the appellants had conie to the shop and enquired about Basant Pandey and kept waiting. When the complainant came to the shop, the accused persons demanded Rs.1,000/- and when the complainant demonstrated his inability to arrange the amount at once, they went away leaving their peon in the shop directing the complainant to hand over the amount to the peon. In cross-examinadon, he categorically says that the accused persons and the peon had come to the shop and the demand was niade by the accused persons. He further says that the peon kept waiting in the shop till evening. Despite detailed cross-examinafion, this witness remained finn on his statement.

12. PW-2 Basant Pandey is the complainant He also stood firm in suppordng the case of the prosecution. He categorically speaks about the demand made by the accused persons when they catne to his shop on 13.6.86.

13.PW-3 Tata Bai is the mother ofthe complamant She had obtained loan fot purchasing a tractor.

She denies that the tractor was attached, therefore, her son i.e. the complainant has lodged a false complaint against the accused persons. 14.PW-4 Hargovind Rathore is the General Manager of the Land Developtnent Bank. He has proved that accused JK Vaishnav had akeady sent his valuadon report in favour of the complaindnt.

He admits in his cross-examination that despite non-paytnent of installments by the mother ofthe complainant, the present loan for tubewell could have been granted to the complainant and thete was no tmpediment in grandng such loan to him.

In further ctoss-examination, he admits that the loan case was never sent back to Jitendra (respondent) after submission ofvaluadon report by him on 20.5.86. 15.PW-5 Chatur Singh Dhurve is a witness to the preliminary inquest. PW-6 SB Singh is the Assistant Manager of the Land Development Bank.

He had seen both the accused persons coming from Takhatput to Mungeli in the moming of the date of the incident whereupon he instructed Jitendra to proceed to Mungeli and directed Ramgopal to come along with him fot effecting the recovery to viUage Khamriya. He left Ramgopal at Takhatpur at about 11 am. According to this witness, when the instaUments are due from a borrower, the loan is not granted to any meniber of his family.

He also says that recovery of instaUments from the tnother of the complainant was entmsted to accused Ratngopal.

16. PW-7 Durga Prasad is an agriculturist (this witness was examined in July, 1986).

Accotding to this witness, about 10 years back, both the accused persons met thecomplainant and infotmed him that if he deposits Rs.1,000/- warrant of attachment would be stayed.

17.PW-8 Uttam. Kumat Dubey is the Process Ser^er (Machhkhuri) of the Land Development Bank.

He speaks about attachment of ticacfor at village Khamjdya. On the date of the inddent, he had gone along with PW-6 Mr. SB Singh fbr tecovery to village Khamriya.

This witness has been declared hostile.

Subsequendy, he clarifies that he had gone to make recovery by attaching tractor of the complainant's mother Tara Bai. 18.PW-9 HN Shulda was inspector in the Lokayukt office and had conducted trap proceedings.

PW-10 Lakhan Lal Mahobia was working as Revenue Inspector, Mungeli and had prepared the site map Ex.-P/26.

19.PW-11 Narendra Sahariya was posted as Naib Tehsildar/ Tehsildar at the relevant titne.

He is a witness to the ttap proceeding and complaint (Ex.-P/3).

PW-12 SS Gaur was a member of the trap team.

20.Ftom the evidence adduced by the prosecudon, as discussed above, it would appear that on the one hand PW-1 Khalil Khan, PW-2 Basant Pandey (complainant) and PW-3 Tara Bai had supported the case of the prosecudon, however, on the othet hand, the evidence ofPW-4 Hatgovind Rathore,PW-5 Chatur

•%) Sitigh Dhur^e, PW-7 Durga Prasad & PW-8 Uttam Kumar Dubey, would reveal that valuation report was akeady submitted; the complainant s mother had ahready obtained a loan for purchasing a tractor and some installments were due and in the recovery proceeding, the tractor was attached, therefore, the accused persons were asking the complainant to deposit Rs.l,000/-in the loan account of the complainant's fnother so that wartant of attachment of tractor be stayed and the ^prpval of the present loan case is fadlitated. This raises some doubt as to whether, in fact, there was demand of illegal gratificadon or the accused persons directed the complainant to deposit Rs.1,000/- in the loan account ofhis mother.

21. Since the law is settled that when two views are possible and the tdal Court, while acquitting the accused persons, had taken one view in the niatter, the appellate Coutt may not set aside the judgtnent of acquittal and record conviction of the accused persons.

22.For the foregoing, this Court is ofthe considered opinion that the trial Coutt has not committed any illegality in giving benefit of doubt to the accused persons and acquitdng them of the charges.

23. The appeal is accordingly dismissed.

Sd/- Prashant Kumar Mishra Judge e<^/lZ/ZU14 Bar^e