Kritnarayan Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

pesticides. On 17.1.2003 accused, Shri Ram, Deputy Director of Agriculture, inspected the shop of Hemsagar Patel, brother of the complainant, at village Kapsi, and seized the original licence certificate, a bill book, and a carbon copy of the bill book related to seeds and pesticides. The accused, Shri Ram, issued a "show cause notice" to the proprietor, Hemsagar Patel, vide letter no. 4074, dated January 22, 2003, and another notice vide letter no. 4088, dated January 23, 2003, citing serious irregularities under the seeds and pesticide business and seeking explanation for cancellation of the license. Hemsagar Patel submitted a reply to the notices on February 13, 2003, which 3 was received by the office of the Deputy Director of Agriculture, Kanker, on February 17, 2003. Further case of the prosecution is that when Hemsagar Patel contacted the accused Shri Ram regarding the case, he demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000 for settling the matter and asked him to send the complainant, R.K. Patel. The complainant R.K. Patel met the accused Shri Ram at his residence on February 19, 2003, and he demanded a bribe of Rs.25,000 for settling the matter. The complainant expressed his inability to pay the amount, and the accused agreed to accept the amount in installments of Rs.5,000. The complainant paid Rs.2,000 to the accused on that day and another Rs.5,000 on February 24, 2003. On March 3, 2003, the accused demanded the next installment of Rs.5,000, and the complainant agreed to pay it on March 10,

2003. However, on March 10, 2003 the complainant RK Patel contacted the Special Police Establishment, Jagdalpur and gave them Rs.5000/- for conducting trap proceedings against the accused Shri Ram.

03. After registration of offence under Section 7 of the Act of 1988, a trap team was constituted, and the complainant, R.K. Patel, along with his brother Hemsagar Patel, panch witness N.D. Tripathi, and other members of the trap team, went to the residence of the accused, K.N. Ram, in Kanker. The accused, Shri Ram, was watching TV in his bedroom and asked the complainant to sit on a chair. Meanwhile, the co-accused, Rakesh Kumar Garg, a lower-division clerk, also arrived at the bedroom to watch a cricket match on TV and was asked to sit on a chair by the accused. When complainant R.K. Patel informed the accused Shri Ram that he brought the bribe amount of Rs.5,000, the accused asked him to hand it over to Rakesh Kumar Garg. The complainant handed over the bribe amount to Rakesh 4 Kumar Garg, who accepted it and kept it in his hand. The complainant then came out of the residence and informed the trap team about the transaction. The trap team along with the panch witness, entered the bedroom and identified themselves. The accused Shri Ram's hands were washed with sodium carbonate solution, but there was no change in the color of the solution. However, when the co-accused, Rakesh Kumar Garg's hands were washed with the same solution, the color turned slightly pink. When questioned, Rakesh Kumar Garg admitted to accepting the bribe amount from the complainant at the instance of accused Shri Ram and stated that he had hidden it under an iron almirah. A memorandum was prepared, and the bribe amount was recovered from the hiding place. The serial numbers of the recovered currency notes matched with the numbers recorded in the preliminary panchnama, confirming that they were the same notes given to the complainant as a bribe. After completing necessary formalities, panchanama of the entire proceedings on the spot was prepared, statements of the accused were recorded and they were arrested on March 11, 2003. During investigation, statements of the panch witnesses, trap team members and other witnesses were recorded and after obtaining due sanction from the State Government for prosecution of the accused persons, charge sheet was filed against them before the Special Court at Jagdalpur.

04. The learned trial court framed charges against the accused persons under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988, which were abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses. Statements of the accused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case 5 and pleaded innocence. However, no witness was examined by them in defence.

05. Learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the parties, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by the impugned judgment while acquitting co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg of all charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law for being contrary to the material available on record. Learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence of PW-2 RK Patel and PW-4 Hemsagar Patel and further failed to consider that they had malafide intention to falsely implicate the appellant in the present crime. Their evidence suffers from the vice of omission and contradiction rendering it not worth reliance at all. Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that as per second proviso to Section 17 of the Act of 1988, investigating officer could enter into investigation of alleged crime on written authorization of Superintendent of Police but the same is lacking in this case. The investigating officer PW-7 RS Dhruv failed to examine the authenticity of the complaint Ex.P/1 in proper perspective. He also failed to find out authenticity of Ex.P/1 which bears signature of PW-1 while the victim PW-4 was also present whose signature could be obtained on Ex.P/1. Learned counsel further submitted that as per para 33 of statement of PW-7, the shadow witnesses PW-3 ND Tripathi and Dr. Deo were instructed to be near the room of the accused to hear the conversation between the complainant and the accused regarding demand and acceptance but PW-3 failed to comply with the said instruction and Dr. Deo has not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, basic ingredients 6 constituting the offence i.e. demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the accused, are missing in this case.

07. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that there is no cogent and reliable evidence to prove demand and acceptance of the illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. There is no mens rea on the part of the accused/appellant as earlier on the complaint of one Manik Lal against PW-2 RK Patel for irregularities in duties, an enquiry was conducted which was later dropped by the appellant holding the complaint to be false. Had there being any criminal mens rea, he would have demanded bribe from PW-2 for dropping the said enquiry also. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the basic requirements for holding the appellant guilty under the aforesaid sections beyond all reasonable doubt and as such, he deserves to be acquitted of the charges by giving him benefit of doubt. Reliance is placed on the decisions in the matters of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. CBI, AIR 2018 SC 4720; Reena Hazarika Vs. State of Assam, (2019) 13 SCC 289; Neeraj Dutta Vs. State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi), (2023) 18 SCC 251 and judgment dated 19.9.2025 of this Court in CRA No.649/2003 in the matter of Ramratan Yadav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh.

08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/State supporting the impugned judgment submits that the trial Court on proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has rightly convicted and sentence the accused/appellant by the impugned judgment and as such, the instant appeal being without substance is liable to be dismissed. 7

09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and the material available on record.

10. It is clear from the record of learned trial Court that the accused/appellant along with co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg was charged under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act of 1988 and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, learned trial Court while acquitting co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg of all charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment.

11. It is not disputed before the learned trial Court that at the time of incident, the accused/appellant was posted as Dy. Director, Agriculture, Kanker and co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg was Assistant Grade-III in the said Agriculture Office, Kanker.

12. PW-2 PK Patel, complainant, states that on 17.1.2003 accused Kritnarayan Ram inspected the shop of his younger brother Hemsagar Patel at Kapsi and found some irregularities and shortcomings and sealed the shop. He also prepared panchanama and seized the licence and bill book and issued show cause notice dated 22.1.2003 and another notice on

23.1.2003. His brother prepared reply to both the notices on 13.2.2003 and gave it on 17.2.2003 to the accused KN Ram. On 17.2.2003 accused KN Ram demanded Rs.25,000/- from his brother for settling the matter and he informed about this to him. At that time, Ashok Chakravarti, who is manager of his firm/shop, was with his brother. The accused/appellant had asked his brother to send him (PW-2) for discussion, so he (PW-2) went to the house of the accused/appellant where he again demanded Rs.25,000/- for settling the 8 matter. He states that when he expressed his inability to pay this much amount, he offered for paying the amount in installments. Then he gave the accused/appellant Rs.2000/- and again on 24.2.2003 gave Rs.5000/-. When the accused again demanded Rs.5000/-, he assured that he would give this amount by 10th March. Then they decided to file a complaint against the accused. On 10.3.2003 they went to the office of Lokayukt, Jagdalpur and submitted their complaint. He states about the preliminary proceedings. In para 10 he states that on being demanded, while he was giving money to accused Ram, then the accused Ram asked co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg, who was already present there, to take this amount and keep in the almirah, and so he gave the amount to Rakesh Kumar Garg. Thereafter, he along with his brother came out and gave signal to the trap party. The trap party entered the house of the accused and they also followed them. When the hands of accused Ram were washed in the sodium carbonate solution, its color did not change but when the hands of co-accused Rakesh Garg were washed in another such solution, its color turned light pink. Both the solutions were separately sealed. On being asked about the money, co-accused Rakesh Garg disclosed that at the instance of accused Ram he kept the money in almirah. Thereafter, the money was recovered from the indicated place by panch witness DN Tripathi and it was found to be the same amount mentioned in the preliminary panchanama. He states that his written complaint is Ex.P/1, based on which FIR (Ex.P/23) was registered against accused Ram; the preliminary panchanama is Ex.P/24, the panchanama of entire proceedings prepared by Inspector RS Dhruv is Ex.P/21; panchanama prepared by the revenue inspector is Ex.P/3; spot map is Ex.P/25 and 9 inspection report of his brother’s shop is Ex.P/26. He admitted his signature on all these documents.

13. In cross-examination he admits that Hemsagar Patel is his younger brother and shop Sagar Enterprises, Kapsi is run in the name of his younger brother. He denied the suggestion that he run the shop in the name of his brother and one Maniklal made a complaint against him to the Chief Minister on 29.7.2002. He admitted the suggestion of defence that there is one Agriculture Service Center at Kapsi in the name of his wife Vrindavan Patel but expressed ignorance about the complaint made by Maniklal against him and the enquiry conducted by accused Ram. In para 24 he admits that he admitted his mistake in reply to notice of Ex.D/1. He also admits that he is working as Agriculture Extension Officer (Rural) and accused Ram gave him warning and stopped his one increment vide Ex.D/3. He states that as penalty (Ex.D/3) was imposed on him by accused Ram despite his tendering apology, it caused him trouble and since then he nourished ill-will against accused Ram. In para 26 he admits that accused Ram had issued him a show cause notice on 14.2.2003 for negligence in construction of a pool.

14. When the Court asked this witness as to why the present case is being prosecuted by him against accused Ram and not the main victim Hemsagar, he replied as under: उ्ቈर- क्ोሱ(cid:6)कि(cid:8) हे(cid:10)मसा(cid:13)गर पटे(cid:10)ल दे(cid:10)नदे(cid:13)र(cid:20) बढ़ गई थी(cid:20), जि(cid:26)सा (cid:8)(cid:13)रण वहे हेतो(cid:30)उ्ቈसा(cid:13)किहेतो हे(cid:30) गोሱ(cid:13) थी(cid:13) जि(cid:26)सा (cid:8)(cid:13)रण इसा शि!(cid:8)(cid:13)ोሱतो (cid:8)(cid:30) म(cid:10)र(cid:10) ቛኋ(cid:13)र(cid:13) आर$भ कि(cid:8)ोሱ(cid:13) गोሱ(cid:13)। म’न(cid:10) अपन(cid:20) शि!(cid:8)(cid:13)ोሱतो प(cid:20). । म’ ऐसा(cid:13) (cid:8)(cid:30)ई उल्ल(cid:10)ख (cid:8)रन(cid:13) उशि,तो नहे- सामझा(cid:13) कि(cid:8) ,/ $कि(cid:8) म(cid:10)र(cid:10) भ(cid:13)ई हे(cid:10)मसा(cid:13)गर पटे(cid:10)ल पर दे(cid:10)नदे(cid:13)र(cid:20) बढ़ गई थी(cid:20), जि(cid:26)सासा(cid:10) वहे हेतो(cid:30)उ्ቈसा(cid:13)किहेतो हे(cid:30) गोሱ(cid:13) थी(cid:13), जि(cid:26)सा(cid:8)(cid:10) (cid:8)(cid:13)रण म0झा(cid:10) शि!(cid:8)(cid:13)ोሱतो (cid:8)रन(cid:20) प़ቡ(cid:20) । In para 29 he volunteers that on account of sealing the shop, the liability increased. 10

15. PW-4 Hemsagar Patel states that his shop of seeds and pesticides is situated at Kapsi and its manager is Ashok Chakravarti. He states that accused KN Ram conducted inspection of his shop and sealed it on the ground of there being some irregularities and issued him show cause notices of Ex.P/27 & P/28. He states that accused Ram demanded Rs.25,000/- for settling the matter. His elder brother RK Patel talked to the accused Ram on

19.2.2003 and the accused again raised a demand of Rs.25,000/-. On the same day, his elder brother gave Rs.2000/- to accused Ram and Rs.5000/- on 24.2.2003 to accused Ram. He states that on 10.3.2003 he along with his elder brother RK Patel went to Lokayukt Office, Jagdalpur and made a complaint against accused Ram vide Ex.P/1. He made similar statement as has been made by PW-2 RK Patel and stated that his brother RK Patel gave the bribe amount of Rs.5000/- to the accused Ram but he asked him to give it to co-accused Rakesh Garg and then Rakesh Garg took the amount and kept the same in almirah.

16. Panch witness ND Tripathi (PW-1) stated about preliminary proceedings and admitted his signature on all the documents concerning preliminary proceedings. He states that he went with the complainant and trap party and after receiving signal from the complainant, entered the house of accused Ram, washed his hands in the sodium carbonate solution but its colour did not change, however, when hands of co-accused Rakesh Garg were washed in the solution, its color turned light pink. He admits the suggestion of defence that on being enquired about bribe amount, accused Ram replied that he did not receive any amount and expressed ignorance about the same. He states that thereafter when enquired from co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg who was watching TV, he told that he accepted money 11 at the instance of accused Ram, kept in the almirah and hence got implicated in this case and started crying.

17. PW-7 RS Dhruv, investigating officer, states about the entire proceedings and that tainted money was recovered from co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg who disclosed that he took the amount at the behest of accused KN Ram and kept in the almirah. The other members of trap party namely PW-3 Ghanshyam Sahu (Constable) and PW-9 Ramlal Gangesh (Head Constable) state that money was recovered from co-accused Rakesh Garg. The investigating officer prepared memorandum of co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg vide Ex.P/4 in which he disclosed that he accepted the bribe amount from RK Patel at the instance of KN Ram and seeing the trap party, threw the said bribe amount under the small almirah. This memorandum was prepared on 10.3.2003 at 21:35 hours and there is overwriting, and seizure memo Ex.P/7 whereby the bribe amount was seized, was prepared on

10.3.2003 at 22:00 hours. In cross-examination of PW-7 RS Dhruv, it was asked by the defence when he had come to know from complainant RK Patel and his brother that bribe amount has not been given to Ram but to Garg, then how and why he recorded memorandum of co-accused Garg. To this, PW-7 replied that when they entered the room where incident took place, at that time the bribe amount was not in the hands of co-accused Garg, therefore, it was necessary to record his memorandum.

18. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that in this case there is no witness of demand of bribe by the accused/appellant. The complainant states that his firm manager Ashok Chakravarty is a witness of demand but the prosecution did not examine him before learned trial court for the reasons best known to it. It is also clear that recovery of tainted amount was made 12 from co-accused Rakesh Kumar Garg and no recovery was effected from the appellant. On the same set of evidence, the learned trial Court acquitted co- accused Rakesh Kumar Garg but convicted the appellant. The complainant admitted that the appellant is his senior officer, who gave him notice and imposed penalty on him, hence he had grudge and ill-will against him. The accused/appellant in his defence statement under Section 313 of CrPC stated that eSa funksZ’k gwa] izdj.k ds izkFkhZ iVsy }kjk esjs fo#} fo}s’k j[krs >wBh dk;Zokgh dh xbZ gSA eSus fu;ekuqlkj mlds QeZ dh tkap fd;k Fkk] tkap ds nkSjku vfu;ferrk ds laca/k es a esjs }kjk dk;Zokgh dh xbZ FkhA ftlls og esjs ls fo}s’k j[krk FkkA

19. In the matter of Dashrath Singh Chauhan (supra) the Hon’ble Supreme Court held in paras 29, 30 & 32 as under: “29. It is for the reason that in order to prove a case against the appellant, it was necessary for the prosecution to prove the twin requirement of "demand and the acceptance of the bribe amount by the appellant". As mentioned above, it was the case of the prosecution in the charge that the appellant did not accept the bribe money but the money was accepted and recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar-coaccused (A-1).

30. In such circumstances, there is no evidence to prove that the appellant directly accepted the money from the Complainant. Since the plea of conspiracy against the appellant and Rajinder Kumar failed, it cannot be held that money (Rs.4000/-) recovered from the possession of Rajinder Kumar was as a fact the bribe money meant for the appellant for holding him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(2) read with 13(1)(d) of the PC Act. It is more so when the benefit of such acquittal from the charge of conspiracy was given to Rajinder Kumar but was not given to the appellant. 13

32. Since in order to attract the rigors of Sections 7, 13(2) read 13(1)(d) of PC Act, the prosecution was under a legal obligation to prove the twin requirements of "demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused", the proving of one alone but not the other was not sufficient. The appellant is, therefore, entitled for acquittal from the charges framed against him under the PC Act too. (See para 8 of M.K. Harshan