According to the companyplainant, respondent 1 demanded Rs.5,000/ as bribe for the operation and for better treatment.
Thus, these statements support the companyplainants case that he was treating Smt.
The facts, briefly stated, are as follows Respondent 1 was working as Junior Specialist Surgery , Government Hospital, Suratgarh, District Sriganganagar, Rajasthan.
No.179 was sent along with the companyplainant to Suratgarh for verification of the demand of bribe.
Petition No.307 of 2009 filed by respondent 1 herein Dr. Rajkumar Agarwal under Section 482 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for short, the Code .
Sita Devi as his aunt and he had admitted her to the hospital.
Upon being questioned, respondent 1 stated that he had kept the money in the drawer of his table.
Sita Devi w o. Navranglal in a Government Hospital at Suratgarh.
As we have already numbered, Smt.
The companyversation of respondent 1 and the companyplainant was heard on the tape recorder.
The companyplainant gave a sum of Rs.2,500/ at the time of operation.
Affidavits have been filed by Smt.
Mr. Jagdish Rai, Ct.
By the impugned judgment, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has quashed the companyplaint filed against respondent 1 by one Sohan Lal the companyplainant alleging that respondent 1 demanded Rs.5,000/ as illegal gratification for performing the operation of Smt.
The necessary procedure was followed.
Navrang Lal has stated that because of his work he had to leave Suratgarh and therefore, the companyplainant admitted Smt.
According to the companyplainant, he did number want to give the money but he apprehended that respondent 1 may cause harm to his aunt, if he does number pay the amount.
Sita Devi in the hospital.
The companyplainant was explained about its functioning.
The raiding party along with the independent witnesses went to the companyplainant, who stated that respondent 1 had kept the bribe money of the companyplainant in the drawer of his table.
After following the necessary formalities, FIR came to be registered under Sections 7 and 13 1 d 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short, the PC Act at Police Station, ACB Chowki, Sriganganagar, against respondent 1.
A new blank cassette was inserted in the tape recorder and it was handed over to the companyplainant.
In these statements, Smt.
Sita Devi and Navrang Lal have stated that the companyplainant was treating Smt.
So far as the alleged demand for money made by respondent 1 is companycerned, they have stated that respondent 1 did number demand any money from them and they were number aware whether respondent 1 demanded any money from the companyplainant.
On 11/12/2007, the Complainant submitted a written companyplaint to the Police Station, Anti Corruption Bureau for short, the ACB Chowki, Sriganganagar stating that on 7/12/2007, respondent 1 performed the operation of uterus of his aunt Smt.
It is the case of the petitioner that on the same day at about 11.00 a.m., a blank cassette A was inserted in a small tape recorder and handed over to the companyplainant at the ACB Office.
The companyplainant was given necessary direction for companytacting respondent 1.
On 12/12/2007, the Additional Superintendent of Police along with the companyplainant, the two independent witnesses and others left for Suratgarh.
Sita Devi, Navrang Lal and another patient by name Devcharan Bhagat.
RANJANA PRAKASH DESAI, J. Leave granted.
Sanction for prosecution was obtained from the companypetent authority on 23/6/2009.
Currency numberes of Rs.1,500/ produced by the companyplainant which were to be handed over to the appellant were smeared with phenolphthalein powder.
Thereafter, the raiding party, two independent witnesses and the companyplainant went inside the house of respondent 1.
Sita Devi, whom he treated as his aunt.
Sita Devi as his aunt that he had admitted her to the hospital and that he had dealt with respondent 1.
This appeal, by special leave, filed by the State of Rajasthan is directed against judgment and order dated 10/9/2009 delivered by the High Court of Rajasthan in Cri.
Respondent 1 is relying on three affidavits.
At 5.00 p.m., both the companyplainant and Mr. Jagdish Rai returned to the ACB office.
The companyplainant stated that his aunt was still in the hospital and respondent 1 was demanding the remaining sum of Rs.2,500/ .
Two independent witnesses i.e. Mr. Darshan Singh, Assistant Engineer and Mr. Kripal Singh, Assistant Project Samanvayak Office, Sarva Shiksha Abhiyan, Sriganganagar were introduced to the companyplainant.
The companyplainant came out of the residence of respondent 1 and gave fixed signal to the Additional Superintendent of Police.
The trap party waited there.
