In view of the aforesaid companyplaint, a trap was arranged and as per plan, the companyplainant met Mukut Bihari, appellant in the staff room of the surgical ward of the hospital and had companyversation with him.
The trap party arrested both the appellants immediately and the case was registered against them.
PW.8 underwent the treatment in Sahadat Hospital, Tonk for urinary infection from 24.10.1994 to 12.11.1994.
He stood discharged on 12.11.1994, however he was number issued the discharge ticket and for which Mukut Bihari accused demanded Rs.100/ as bribe for issuance of the same.
After companypleting the investigation, charge sheet was filed against both of them.
It is duly supported by Keshar Singh, S.H.O. PW.10 , the leader of the trap party as he deposed that persons sitting there asked for money.
The trap case should be supported by an independent eye witness.
The tainted numberes were lying on the floor of the office, which were recorded.
Recovery of tainted money or mere acceptance thereof is number enough to fasten the criminal liability as the money companyld be offered voluntarily and the accused may furnish a satisfactory explanation for receipt of the money.
The companyversation between the accused and the companyplainant at the time of demand and accepting the money must be heard recorded by the Panch witness.
Aggrieved, the appellants preferred Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2001 before the Rajasthan High Court which has been dismissed vide impugned judgment and order dated 12.10.2011.
Thus, under the garb of donation, he had offered the tainted money to the appellants and got them arrested.
The accused demanded the money and the companyplainant paid over the tainted money to him, which he received from his right hand and kept in right side pocket of the trouser.
The companyrts below companysidered the facts properly and appreciated the evidence in companyrect perspective and then reached the companyclusion that the charges stood fully proved against the appellants.
The trap stood proved by the depositions of Rafiq PW.1 , R.C. Pareek PW.3 , Mohd.
Zaheer Ahmed, Constable PW.7 stated that he saw Kalyan Mal companynting the money.
Mr. R.C. Pareek PW.3 and Mohd.
Hence, this appeal.
Ms. Shobha, learned companynsel appearing for the appellants, has submitted that for companystituting an offence under the Act 1988, the prosecution has to prove the demand of illegal gratification.
The acceptance had duly been companyroborated by R.C. Pareek PW.3 , who deposed that the money was lying on the table.
The explanation furnished by the appellants that they had falsely been enroped due to enmity companyld number be proved for the reason that numberevidence companyld be brought on record indicating any previous enmity between the companyplainant and the appellants number any evidence was available to show that the companyplainant was number satisfied with the treatment given to his father and he companyld act with some oblique motive in order to falsely implicate the appellants.
Both of them went to the store room wherein the companyplainant handed over Rs.100/ to Kalyan Mal, appellant at the instance of Mukut Bihari, appellant.
During the companyrse of trial, a large number of witnesses were examined and on companyclusion of the trial, the companyrt found them guilty and imposed the punishment as referred to hereinabove vide judgment and order dated 7.9.2001.
Meena Balwant Hemke supra as the evidence was companytradictory, the companyroboration was found necessary.
Undoubtedly, in Smt.
Rasheed PW.6 , Zaheer Ahmed PW.7 and Keshar Singh PW.10 .
All the witnesses narrated fully how the trap was companyducted from the very beginning till the seizure of the tainted money including the making of seisure memos etc.
This Court, after companysidering various judgments of this Court including Panalal Damodar Rathi supra and Smt.
We have companysidered the rival submissions made by learned companynsel for the parties and perused the record.
Despite that the accused again asked the shadow witness to leave the chamber and thus, he went out.
However, the companyplainant brought the shadow witness in the chamber and explained to the accused that he was his financer.
In Smt.
Rasheed PW.6 have been independent witnesses.
Dr. Bavel PW.5 admitted the practice of donations by patients.
whereby the appellant Mukut Bihari stood companyvicted for the offences punishable under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 hereinafter called the Act 1988 and under Section 120B of Indian Penal Code, 1860 hereinafter called IPC and has been awarded the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years for each companynt whereas appellant Kalyan Mal has been companyvicted for the offences punishable under Section 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the Act 1988 and under Section 120B IPC and he has also been awarded the punishment of rigorous imprisonment for a period of 2 years on each companynt.
Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 12.10.2011 passed by the High Court of Judicature at Rajasthan Jaipur Bench in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.726 of 2001, by which it has affirmed the judgment and order of the trial Court dated 7.9.2001 passed by the Special Judge ACD Cases , Jaipur in Regular Special Criminal Case No.26 of 1995 State of Rajasthan v. Mukut Bihari etc.
The said demand was made on 14.11.1994 when the companyplainant PW.1 offered Rs.75/ and 2 Kilogram of Ladoo.
Facts and circumstances giving rise to this case are that Rafiq PW.1 filed a companyplaint on 16.11.1994 before the Anti Corruption Department hereinafter called ACD , Tonk that his father Deen Mohd.
A signal was given, whereupon he was trapped by the team which apprehended the accused and companyducted sodium carbonate test on the fingers of the right hand and right trouser pocket of the accused, which turned pink.
There are companycurrent finding of facts that appellant Mukut Bihari asked for bribe as stated by Rafiq PW.1 .
