Shortly stated, the facts are that the appellant Girja Prasad was working as Lower Division Clerk LDC in the Office of Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur.
According to the prosecution, it was PW 4 Ramnarain Rajoria, the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari who had asked the companyplainant to pay Rs.500/ to the accused that the companyplainant paid the said amount to him.
Ramnarain Rajoria was accompanied by the accused Girja Prasad Gupta.
On analysis, it was found by the Chemical Examiner that the pocket wash of the shirt of the accused was having traces of phenolphthalein powder.
The Court, however, acquitted the accused holding that both the Panchas did number support the case of the prosecution.
By the said judgment, the High Court set aside an order of acquittal recorded by the II Addl.
District Sessions Judge, Jabalpur on March 15, 1989 in Special Criminal Case No.
The hands of the accused were washed in the solution of the sodium carbonate and liquid became matmaila.
On the same day, the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari went to Dindori and opened the lock of the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya.
Charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge.
In his defence, he stated that he had been falsely implicated.
Investigation was companyducted and the accused was charged for offences punishable under Section 161, IPC and Sections 5 1 d and 5 2 of the Act.
It is alleged that PW 4 Ramnarain Rajoria asked the companyplainant that either he should pay an amount of Rs.500/ through accused Girja Prasad or should suffer suspension.
The said companyviction has been challenged by the accused in this Court.
The companyplainant immediately gave signal to the trap party.
Inspector of Special Police Establishment, S.K. Tiwari PW 10 and Wadhwa PW 8 , Gazetted Officer who was associated with the trap party reached near the accused and asked him where the money was.
The accused told them that the money was in the pocket of his shirt.
Grievance was also made by the learned advocate that the Trial Court was legally wrong in discarding the evidence of PW 1 Anup Kumar Complainant and PW 10 S.K. Tiwari Inspector, characterizing them as interested witnesses.
It may be stated that at the trial, both the Panch witnesses Jawahar Soni PW 6 and Wadhwa PW 8 did number support the prosecution and were treated hostile.
On August 1, 2007, when the matter was placed before us for final hearing, it was stated that during the pendency of the appeal, Girja Prasad original appellant accused died.
On September 2, 2002, leave was granted and the accused was ordered to be released on bail.
According to the prosecution, PW1 companyplainant Anup Kumar was number willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/ to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari.
He, therefore, lodged a companyplaint in writing in the office of Lokayukt at Jabalpur.
Two currency numberes of Rs.100/ denomination each were kept in the pocket of the companyplainant duly treated with chemical powder and he was informed about the special signal after giving bribe to the accused, so that the accused can be caught.
The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal and the High Court, as observed earlier, set aside the order of acquittal and companyvicted the accused for the offences with which he was charged.
The Registry of this Court, however, raised an objection that there was delay of 149 days in filing the application.
It was stated that Smt.
We, thereafter, heard learned companynsel for the parties.
It was the case of the prosecution that on September 20, 1983, Ramanarain Rajoria, Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur PW 4 paid surprise visit to Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Dindori, District Mandla and found that several members of the staff were absent including the Ayurvedic Chikitsak himself.
The case of the prosecution was that Anup Kumar paid Rs.300/ on the same day to accused Girja Prasad at Dindori and assured him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/ on October 5, 1983 at Jabalpur.
He also stated that he had submitted an application for extension of leave upto September 23, 1983 but the same was number available in the Office of Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur.
The case of the prosecution was that the companyplainant was asked to pay an amount of Rs.500/ by the accused and the said amount had been accepted by him in two installments, Rs.300/ at Dindori and Rs.200/ at Jabalpur where trap was successful.
Both independent panchas PW 8Wadhwa and PW 6Jawahar Soni did number oblige the prosecution.
The companyplainant and Wadhwa were asked to companye on the next day i.e. on October 5, 1983 for arranging a trap.
Sanction for prosecution of the accused was granted by the State Government.
The matter was thereafter placed for final hearing.
No separate sentence, however, was awarded to him for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
The Trial Court negatived the companytention of the accused that sanction was number in accordance with law and the trial was vitiated.
In the said companyplaint, it was stated that the companyplainant wanted the companyrupt officer to be caught red handed.
One J.M. Wadhwa PW 8 , an Assistant Engineer from P.H.E.D., a Gazetted Officer agreed to act as trap witness.
Munni Bai, widow of deceased Girja Prasad had filed an application under proviso to sub section 2 of Section 394 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 hereinafter referred to as the Code to allow her to companytinue the appeal by seeking leave of this Court.
The companyplainant replied in the affirmative, took out two currency numberes with his right hand and gave them to the accused.
Such application was filed by Munni Bai.
40 of 1985 and companyvicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code IPC for short and Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereinafter referred to as the Act and ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.200/ for the offence under Section 161, IPC.
The fate of the case, therefore, hanged on two witnesses, PW 1 Anup Kumar Complainant and PW 10 S.K. Tiwari Inspector of Special Police Establishment.
The pocket of the shirt of the accused was separately washed in the solution of the sodium carbonate and the liquid again became matmaila.
The accused then asked the companyplainant as to whether he had brought the amount.
After hearing learned companynsel for the parties, we companydoned delay, granted the prayer of applicant Munni Bai and allowed her to companytinue the appeal.
On September 27, 1983, the companyplainant Anup Kumar PW 1 came to Jabalpur and informed to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari that he was on casual leave from September 7, 1983 to September 11, 1983.
The said provision companyfers right on near relatives of the accused who is companyvicted and sentenced to imprisonment and who dies during the pendency of the appeal to companytinue the appeal in certain cases by applying to the Court within thirty days of the death of the appellant.
Consequently, he locked the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya and returned to Jabalpur.
The companyplainant got back to the Lokayukt Office and informed the trap party that the accused had promised to companye to Narmada Restaurant at 5.00 p.m. At 5.00 p.m., the companyplainant came with the accused in the restaurant and sat near the table of Wadhwa, panch witness, who was intimated about the currency numberes treated with chemical powder.
Another panch was Jawahar Soni PW 6 .
A panchnama of the proceedings was drawn.
The case of the appellant accused was of total denial.
Accordingly, the Trial Court acquitted the accused.
It was also submitted that the Trial Court was right in observing that numberindependent witness supported the prosecution and only interested version was placed before the Court in the form of deposition of PW 1Anup Kumar Complainant and PW 10 S.K. Tiwari, Inspector.
It was also immaterial whether the accused was or was number in a position to oblige the companyplainant by preventing or delaying his suspension.
The power to suspend was only with Ramnarain RajoriaPW 4, and the main work was to be done by Ramnarain Rajoria, but it was number clear under what companypelling circumstances, numberprosecution was launched against Ramnarain Rajoria.
The prosecution, in order to prove the case against the accused, inter alia examined PW1 Anup Kumar Complainant, PW 4 Ramnarain Rajoria, PW 6 Jawahar Soni Panch II, PW 8 J. M. Wadhwa Panch I, PW 10 S.K. Tiwari Inspector of Special Police Establishment.
On August 2, 2002, numberice was issued by this Court.
Regarding evidence of PW 1 Anup Kumar Complainant and PW 10 S.K. Tiwari Inspector of Special Police Establishment, the Court stated that their evidence companyld number be relied upon since they were interested witnesses.
The Court also observed that the accused was merely a Clerk and he was number in a position to oblige the companyplainant by number placing him under suspension.
Accordingly, on October 5, 1983, the companyplainant Anup Kumar reached the Office of Lokayukt at 11.00 a.m. He was asked to bring the accused in a hotel so that he may be caught red handed accepting the bribe.
Liquid of the hand wash and pocket wash of the accused was separately sealed in two bottles and was sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory.
The Trial Court, therefore, companycluded that the money was to be paid to PW 4 Ramnarain Rajoria who was number arrayed as accused and against whom numberproceedings had been initiated.
1070 of 1989.
K. THAKKER, J. The present appeal was filed by appellant Girja Prasad since deceased against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on April 17, 2002 in Criminal Appeal No.
