Thereafter, the trial companyrt heard the accused on sentence, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/ under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
The statement of PW 3 Ram Singh companyplainant gets companyroborated by the statement of PW 4 L. Vashist Deputy Superintendent of Police , as well as by PW 2 Ashok Bhargav, Deputy Collector who is superior officer of the appellants own department.
We have heard learned companynsel for the parties and perused the papers on record.
1 of 1992.
Hence this appeal through special leave.
The currency numberes recovered tallied with the memorandum Ext.
When the team reached the house of the appellant in Khidki, Distt.
Datiya, and the appellant accepted the amount of Rs.1000/ , a signal was given to the police party, which immediately caught the appellant and his hands were washed in water in a bucket, which turned red.
The accused was further companyvicted under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/ .
The High Court, after hearing the parities, re appreciated the evidence and companycurred with the companyviction and sentence recorded by the trial companyrt.
P 3 on 17.6.1987 to Superintendent of Police Vigilance , Gwalior.
A trap was laid, headed by PW 4 B.L. Vashist Deputy Superintendent of Police in which PW 2 Ashok Bhargava Deputy Collector and one Sahir DW 6 were panch witnesses.
As per the plan, PW 3 Ram Singh and panch witness Sahir were followed by PW 2 Ashok Bhargav, Deputy Collector, PW 4 B.L. Vashist, Deputy Superintendent of Police, and PW 6 Inspector Raghuraj Shastri.
For each of the defaults in payment of fine, the companyvict was directed to undergo further three months rigorous imprisonment.
Before trap, ten currency numberes of Rs.100/ of the companyplainant were applied phenolphthalein powder, and a memorandum Ext.
On this, prosecution got examined PW 1 R.R. Vishwa Deva clerk in Collectors office , PW 2 Ashok Bhargav Deputy Collector , PW 3 Ram Singh companyplainant , PW 4 B.L. Vashisth Deputy Superintendent of Police , PW 5 R. Tiwari Assistant Grade I , and PW 6 Raghuraj Shastri Inspector .
900/ .
P 4 was prepared.
After death of Badri, companyplainant and his mother Bhagobai sought mutation of their names in the revenue record.
When Bhagobai, mother of the companyplainant, met the appellant in this companynection, he demanded Rs.
Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 10.2.2000, passed by Special Judge, Datiya in Special Case No.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties, appears to have framed charge against the accused to which the accused pleaded number guilty and claimed to be tried.
P 4 and fresh panchnama was prepared.
After investigation, the Investigating Officer R.S. Parihar since died filed the charge sheet against the appellant Indra Vijay Alok for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
When Complainant PW 3 came to his village, his mother told him about the demand made by the appellant.
Prosecution story, in brief, is that a piece of land in Badoni Khurd was in the name of one Badri, younger brother of PW 3 Ram Singh companyplainant .
On this, on 18.05.1987 he PW 3 himself met the appellant, who clearly told him that unless further Rs.1000/ is paid to him, the mutation would number be done.
Thereafter, the raiding party asked the appellant to take out Rs.1000/ accepted by him from PW 3 Ram Singh.
Prosecution evidence was put to the accused Indra Vijay Alok, in reply to which he only admitted that he was Patwari of the Halka at the relevant period, and there was land in the village recorded in the name of Badri, but as to the rest of the evidence he denied the same as incorrect.
In defence, the appellant got examined DW 1 Baijnath, DW 2 Ram Swaroop, DW 3 Hardas, DW 4 Swami Sharan Saxena, DW 5 Sita Ram Gupta, and DW 6 Sahir.
Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and crime was registered.
Appellant Indra Vijay Alok was the Patwari of Halka area during the relevant period, i.e. in 1987.
1 of 1992, the companyvict Indra Vijay Alok preferred appeal before the High Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal No.
102 of 2000.
This companypelled PW 3 Ram Singh companyplainant to make a companyplaint Ext.
1900/ out of which she paid Rs.
The trial companyrt, after hearing the parties, found that the evidence of PW 3 Ram Singh and statement given by PW 2 Ashok Bhargav Deputy Collector read with the statements of other prosecution witnesses, and the documents proved on record, leave numberroom of doubt that the accused demanded Rs.1000/ from PW 3 Ram Singh for getting entered his name and that of his mother in place of Badri in the revenue record, and Rs.1000/ was given to and accepted by the accused when the trap was laid, and the same was recovered from the pocket of his pant.
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated 31.8.2007, passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur Gwalior Bench , whereby said Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No.
102 of 2000, and affirmed companyviction and sentence recorded against accused Indra Vijay Alok under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 by the Special Judge, Datiya, in Special Case No.
