Jabalpur v. Dr. Shireesh Yadu), by which the learned Special Judge(CBI) has convicted and se
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN 2025:CGHC:29930 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1765 of 1998 Dr.Shireesh Yadu S/o Dr. B. S. Yadu Aged About 36 Years By Occupation Senior Medical OfÏcer Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital And Research Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant, Bhilai M. P. Now Chhattisgarh R/o 9 A Avenue B Sector-7, Bhilai M. P. Now Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - The State Of M.P., Now Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh 2 - Union Of India Central Bureau Of Investigation / A C B Branch Bhilai District Durg Presently Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State For UOI : Mr. Manoj Paranjpe, Advocate. : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. : Mr. B. Gopa Kumar, Advocate along with Mr. Himanshu Pandey, Advocate (CBI) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02 .07 .2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of Conviction and order of Sentence dated 04.08.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge/and Special Judge, (CBI) Jabalpur (M.P.) in Special Case No. 16/95, in case of (Government through CBI, 2 Jabalpur Vs. Dr. Shireesh Yadu), by which the learned Special Judge(CBI) has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 7 of R.I. for three years and fine amount of Rs. Prevention of Corruption 7,000/- in default of which R.I. for 6 months. Ac, 1988 Under Section 13(1) (d) and read with Section 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 7000/- in default of which R.I. for 6 months. Substantive sentences to run concurrently. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any iota of evidence, the Special Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. Brief facts of the case are that in July 1994, Dr. Shireesh Yadu/appellant was serving as a Senior Medical Officer at the Jawaharlal Nehru Hospital and Research Centre, Bhilai Steel Plant. In April 1994, complainant Bharatlal, along with his brother Kantilal, visited the hospital for medical treatment and met the accused. On 27.06.1994, Bharatlal again visited the hospital and contacted the accused. The accused allegedly informed him that his operation could not be performed at the hospital. On 15.07.1994, Bharatlal again met Dr. Yadu/appellant, who told him that he would get the operation done, but apart from the regular 3 surgical expenses, he would have to pay an additional illegal amount of Rs.700/-. Dr. Yadu allegedly demanded Rs.700/- as a bribe. Complainant Bharatlal, unwilling to pay the bribe, went to Room No. 148, Bhilai Hotel, and submitted a written complaint (Exhibit P-2) to Inspector O.P. Parida of the CBI. Thereafter, during Pre-Trap Preparation, Inspector Parida called M.A.S. Agwan and K.K. Giri Goswami, introduced them to the
Legal Reasoning
complainant, and both witnesses confirmed the contents of the complaint. Complainant Bharatlal presented Rs.700/- in cash to be used in the trap, which was treated with phenolphthalein powder. A chemical demonstration was conducted with sodium carbonate, and the color turned pink, confirming the presence of the chemical. The notes were marked, kept in Bharatlal’s pocket, and a trap memorandum (Exhibit P-3) was prepared. The complainant/Bharatlal was instructed not to hand over the money
Legal Reasoning
unless the accused explicitly demanded it. Mr. K.K. Giri Goswami was to accompany him as a shadow witness and listen to their conversation. After handing over the bribe, Bharatlal was to give a pre-decided signal. On the same day at about 5:45 P.M., the trap team, including the complainant and shadow witness, reached near the appellant’s house. 4. Complainant Bharatlal and Goswami went inside. When the accused demanded and accepted the bribe, Bharatlal gave the prearranged signal. The CBI team immediately entered and caught Dr. Yadu/appellant herein red-handed. The marked Rs. 4 700/- was recovered from his pocket, and the serial numbers matched with once noted earlier. A sodium carbonate solution was again prepared, and the accused’s hands were washed in it. The solution turned pink, indicating the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The seized currency and chemical solutions were sealed. The accused’s shirt pocket was also tested with sodium carbonate, which also turned pink. Bharatlal’s hands were similarly tested and showed pink coloration. These samples were sealed in bottles, and a detailed trap memorandum (Exhibit P-5) was prepared. A site map (Exhibit P-1) of the scene was also prepared. During investigation, certain documents were seized from the complainant Bharatlal through seizure memo. The seized articles, phenolphthalein powder, and marked notes were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical analysis, where presence of the chemical was confirmed. The FSL report is (Exhibit P-14). A diary (Exhibit P-12) was also seized from Dr. P.R. Patra. The complaint and other documents were submitted to Superintendent of Police, CBI, Jabalpur, and an FIR (Exhibit P-13) was lodged by R.K. Jaiswal, SP, CBI, Jabalpur. 5. After investigation, it was concluded that Dr.Shireesh Yadu had committed an offence punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. As the accused was a public servant, sanction for prosecution was obtained from Managing Director, Bhilai Steel Plant. 5 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Special Judge. 7. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents Ex.P-1 to P-14. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. He submitted a written defence statement, stating that Bharatlal and Kantilal had come for surgery, but Dr. Patra had refused to operate. Bharatlal pleaded for help due to severe pain. Dr. Yadu then referred him to a private hospital, suggesting to meet with Dr. Aarti Yadu (his wife). The operation was conducted by Dr. Hamdani and Dr.Rakesh Gupta, and Rs. 700/- was paid as registration charges, which his wife had received. He claimed that the bribe allegation was a conspiracy plotted by Dr. Mishra (Director), Mr. R.C. Jain (Vigilance Officer), and Mr. Toppo, and that he was innocent. 8. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge/and Special Judge, (CBI) Jabalpur (M.P.) convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 9. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the learned trial Judge has erred in holding the appellant is guilty for the offence as aforementioned. He further submitted that perusal 6 of the evidence of PW-5 S.C.Jain clearly indicates that the sanction order was completely bad in law as the Sanctioning Authority did not apply his mind which has caused great prejudice to the appellant. He also submitted that if the Sanctioning Authority had applied his mind then he would not have granted permission to prosecute the appellant. The learned trial Court has erred in not seeing that there is no evidence on record to establish that the accused demanded any bribe and he had accepted the money of Rs.700/- as bribe. The learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the accused / appellant has given a plausible explanation that once Dr. Patra had refused to perform the operation on 27-6-94, which has been explained to Kantilal, the brother of Bharatlal and there was no need for the complainant to approach Dr. Yadu, the appellant for the operation because Dr. Yadu was junior Dr. Patra, which fact is established from the evidence of Dr. Rakesh Gupta and DW-6 Dr. Ahmad Hamdani and then the complainant was given the address of the appellant's house and he was told the name of Gayatri Nursing Home and the amount of Rs.700/- was demanded for registration of the patient in the Nursing Home and reading of the judgment clearly goes to indicate that the learned trial Court has not kept in his view that the evidence of the complainant has to be corroborated on the aspect of demand of bribe. 10. It has been further argued by learned counsel for the appellant that reading of evidence (PW-1) Kantilal and (PW-6) Giri Goswami 7 goes to indicate that they also do not support that the appellant has taken Rs. 700/- as bribe and a reasonably analysis of the evidence would go to indicate that this amount was given towards registration fee. The appellant has not demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by misusing his official post. Even money was not found with the appellant. As per case of the prosecution, the present appellant has not touched the currency notes or any articles tainted with phenolphthalein powder, but hand wash solution of the appellant shows the presence of phenolphthalein powder and solution of sodium carbonate which shows that the prosecution has concocted the case against the appellant. He lastly submits that the learned trial Court has awarded maximum sentence to the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act i.e. 03 years of R.I. with fine of Rs. 7000/-, in default, six month R.I. on both counts and he states that the appellant may be awarded minimum sentence which was one year at that relevant point of time, if the Court is not satisfied with the merits of the case. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supported the judgment impugned and argued that by adducing evidence the prosecution has proved its case beyond all shadow of doubt. The appellant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by misusing his official post. Evidence adduced on 8 behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that the appellant has demanded and accepted Rs.700/- which was recovered from the appellant. 12. Learned counsel appearing for respondent No.2/CBI submits that after appreciating the evidence and documents available on record, the learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Special Judge (CBI), has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence, in which no interference is called for. 13. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, I have examined the evidence available on record. 15. In the present case, the deposition made by the complainant namely Bharatlal (PW-3) is of utmost importance. He has deposed that about two years ago, he fell from a tree and injured his ribs. For treatment, he went to Sector-1 Hospital, Bhilai, and first met the accused on 15.04.1994 in the OPD. He advised him to get admitted and undergo surgery on 27.06.1994. On 27.06.1994, Dr. Yadu/appellant told him that the operation could not be done in the hospital and told him to come again on 15.07.1994 with his brother and Rs.700/- separately for the treatment. He gave his home address, and he visited him on 15.07.1994 morning. When he said he had not brought the money yet, he insisted he bring it by evening. Thereafter, he approached 9 the CBI and filed a written complaint and a trap was laid. Marked currency notes with phenolphthalein powder were given to him. He went to Dr. Yadu’s/appellant house with a shadow witness. He demanded and accepted Rs. 700/-, which he gave from his shirt pocket. On his signal, the CBI team entered and caught the accused. His hands tested positive for phenolphthalein. The bribe money was recovered from him and all items and proceedings were documented. 16. M.A.S. Agwan (PW-2) has deposed that complainant Bharat Lal reported that Dr. Yadu/appellant demanded Rs. 500/- as a bribe for medical treatment. Thereafter, trap was arranged using phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution to confirm the bribe. The bribe money was marked and given to Bharat Lal, who handed it to Dr. Yadu during a monitored encounter thereafter, Dr. Yadu/appellant was caught red-handed with marked currency in his shirt pocket and his hands and shirt tested positive for the chemical. The trap and recovery were documented through proper procedure, sealed, and signed by the officials. 17. Kantilal (PW-1) has deposed that his brother’s name is Bharat Lal and when he had fallen from the tree and suffered an injury on his stomach. He was treated at Bhilai Steel Plant Hospital, and the treatment was being carried out by the present accused, Dr. Yadu. On 15.07.1994, at around 7:00 AM, his brother Bharat Lal met Dr. Yadu for admission and requested him to proceed with the 10 hospital formalities. Dr. Yadu told him that he will get him admitted, and he will also ensure that their brother’s treatment is done, but apart from the hospital expenses, he will have to give him Rs. 700/- as a bribe. He also told his brother to come to his house that evening at 6:00 PM with Rs.700/-. Dr. Yadu asked his brother to come to Jawahar Lal Nehru Hospital located at Sector- 1 for the admission process. When they met Dr. Yadu that morning at 7:00 AM, he wrote down his home address on a slip of paper and gave it to them, instructing that they should come to his residence in the evening. 18. Dr. O.P. Parida (PW-7) has deposed that on 15.07.1984, in light of the complaint, he was posted confidentially at Bhilai Camp and stayed at Room No. 148 in Bhilai Hotel. He was accompanied by CBI Officer V. Dikshit, Sanjay Nimje, Head Constable Ramcharan Tiwari, and one Constable. He further deposed that at around 1:00 PM, a person named Bharat Lal came to Bhilai Hotel and handed over a written complaint to him. He examined it. It mentioned that Dr. S. Yadu/appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.700/- for performing an operation and providing treatment. He also orally questioned the complainant regarding the same. The written complaint is (Exhibit P-2). Based on this, he registered a preliminary complaint (dehati nalishi) under No. 0/94 at Bhilai Hotel then he summoned two independent witnesses, M.A.S. Agwan, Senior Section Officer at HSCL Bhilai and K.K. Giri Goswami, Telephone Inspector. They were shown the written 11 complaint (Exhibit P-2) and they also questioned Bharat Lal. After being satisfied, both witnesses signed (Exhibit P-2). They then decided to conduct a trap to catch Dr. S. Yadu red-handed while accepting the bribe. Complainant Bharat Lal was asked to present the bribe amount thereafter, he produced 14 notes of 50 rupees in the presence of the witnesses, and their serial numbers were recorded. A demonstration of phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate solution was conducted. Witness M.A.S. Agwan was asked to touch the powder, and upon dipping his fingers into the prepared solution, it turned pink, indicating chemical reaction. The solution was sealed in a bottle. A memorandum (Exhibit P-3) was prepared, bearing the signatures of himself, the witnesses, and the complainant. Still at Room No. 148, all hands of the trap team and the witnesses were thoroughly washed and searched. The 14 notes of 50 rupees were coated with phenolphthalein powder and kept in the left upper shirt pocket of the complainant. He was instructed not to touch the money unless Dr. Yadu demanded it, and after handing it over, to signal us by scratching his shoulder with his left hand. Witness Giri Goswami was instructed to accompany the complainant, listen to the conversation, and observe the transaction. After all instructions and preparations, the setup was completed by around 5:15 PM. When they then left in two vehicles for the residence of Dr. Yadu, located at avenue B, Sector-7, Bhilai. The vehicles were stopped a little distance away. Bharat Lal and Giri Goswami went inside while the rest of us took 12 their positions outside the gate. Shortly after, Bharat Lal came out and gave the pre-arranged signal by scratching his left shoulder. Based on this, himself, M.A.S. Agwan, and others entered the drawing room and revealed their identities. Upon confrontation, accused Dr. Yadu appeared shocked and visibly panicked. Complainant Bharat Lal informed them that Dr. Yadu had taken the bribe money and placed it in his left upper shirt pocket. Witness M.A.S. Agwan was asked to recover the money. He removed the currency notes from the shirt pocket, and the serial numbers matched the ones recorded in (Exhibit P-3). A glass of sodium carbonate solution was prepared. The accused dipped the fingers of his right hand into it, and the solution turned pink. A separate glass was prepared for the left hand, and the result was the same. Both solutions were sealed in bottles, and all present, including the accused, signed them. The accused’s shirt was then removed and its pocket area was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution, which also turned pink, indicating presence of phenolphthalein. This was also sealed in a bottle. Complainant Bharat Lal’s right-hand fingers were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, which also turned pink, confirming contact with the marked currency. This solution was also sealed in a bottle. The recovered bribe money was sealed in an envelope with signatures from all involved. The accused’s shirt was also sealed in a separate packet and signed. All proceedings were completed by around 9:00 PM. A recovery memorandum (Exhibit P-4) was 13 prepared. During investigation, he recorded statements of witnesses including Bharat Lal, M.A.S. Agwan, Kantilal, K.K. Giri Goswami, Dr. P.R. Patra, Mr. V. Dikshit, and Mr. Sanjay Nimje. The sealed bottles containing the demonstration solutions and chemical traces from the hands and shirt were sent to the Central Forensic Science Laboratory, New Delhi through the Superintendent of Police. The report received is marked as (Exhibit P-14), which confirmed the presence of phenolphthalein powder in all samples. Upon receiving prosecution sanction against the accused Dr. S. Yadu, He submitted the charge-sheet before the competent court. 19. In support of his case the appellant has examined Mr. Charanlal Patel (DW-1), Dr. Arti Yadu (DW-2), Ms. Bindu (DW-3), Dr. Arun Mandhariya (DW-4), Dr. Rakesh Gupta (DW-5), Dr. Ahmad Hamdani (DW-6), as DW-1 to DW-6. However, from perusal of the their deposition there is nothing on record which goes to show that the appellant is innocent. 20. Evidences of the aforesaid witnesses are sufÏcient for drawing inference that the appellant has demanded and accepted Rs.700/- as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration. The above facts are sufÏcient to prove that by misusing his post, the appellant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from the complainant. 21. Sanction for prosecution to prosecute the accused in case of offence punishable under the Prevention of Corruption Act is sine 14 qua non. In the present case, V. Gujral, Managing Director of the Bhilai Steel Plant has proved the order of sanction to prosecute the accused vide Ex.P-13. Order reveals that the sanctioning authority has considered the case of the prosecution and after satisfying itself has accorded sanction. 22. In the present case, evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufÏcient for drawing an inference that the appellant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration by misusing his ofÏce which is punishable under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 23. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned 5th Additional Sessions Judge, (Special Judge, CBI), Jabalpur has convicted & sentenced the appellant as aforementioned. 24. Considering the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant with respect to the question of sentence, this Court considers the same. 25. As regards the question of sentence is concerned, the trial Court has awarded maximum sentence of R.I. for three years on each counts. The appellant is facing trial since 1994. Considering the pendency of trial and appeal and the fact that at the time of the judgment the appellant was aged about 36 years and at present, he is aged about 63 years and he suffered criminal trial for more than 30 years, the sentence requires reconsideration. 26. Consequently, the appeal is partly allowed. Conviction & sentence 15 of the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act are hereby maintained, but instead of R.I. for three years and fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months on both counts, he is sentenced to undergo R.I. for one year and fine of Rs.7000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months on both counts. The appellant has stated that he has paid the fine amount as has been awarded by the trial Court. 27. The appellant is on bail, he shall surrender forthwith before the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, (C.B.I.), Jabalpur, or successor in ofÏce for serving remaining part of sentence as modified by this Court failing which, the concerned trial Court shall take immediate steps to take the appellant in custody and to send him to jail to serve out the sentence. 28. Registrar (Judicial) is directed to transmit the original record to the concerned trial Court for necessary information and follow up action forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Kunal