High Court of Chhattisgarh · 2025
Case Details
Reserved on : 20/01/2025 Pronounced on : 21/04/2025 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Cr.A.No. 439 of 2001 1. Mohan Lal Gahre (Died) Through Lrs. As Per Hon’ble Court Order Dated 21-06-2022. 2. 1.1 - Smt. Vandana Gahre, W/o Late Mohan Lal Gahre, aged about 68 Years, Housewife, R/o Satnam Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492006. 3. 1.2 - Kamlesh Kumar Gahre, S/o Late Mohan Lal Gahre, aged about 48 Years, R/o Satnam Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492006. 4. 1.3 - Govind Gahre, S/o Late Mohan Lal Gahre, aged about 43 Years, Occupation Factory Job, R/o Satnam Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492006. 5. 1.4 - Veni Gahre, S/o Late Mohan Lal Gahre, aged about 40 Years, Occupation Farmer, R/o Satnam Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492006. 6. 1.5 - Sanjeev Ghare, S/o Late Mohan Lal Gahre, aged about 35 Years, Occupation Private Job, R/o Satnam Nagar, Ring Road No. 1, Telibandha, Ravigram, Raipur, District Raipur Pin 492006. State of Chhattisgarh Versus ---- Appellants --- Respondent ________________________________________________________________________ For the Appellants : Ms. Deepali Pandey, Advocate. For State/ Respondent
Legal Reasoning
17 SCC 509 and also judgment passed by this Court in case of Omprakash Pradhan Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) dated 02/02/2022 passed in Cr.A. No. 1623/2000, Shivprasad Kuldeep Vs. State of Chhattisgarh dated 09/06/2021 passed in Cr.A. No. 829/2003 and F.U.Siddiqui Vs. State of Chhattisgarh dated 16/11/2017 passed in Cr.A. No. 939/2001. 7. Per contra Learned Counsel for the State argued that the prosecution was able to bring home the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the demand has duly been proved in light of the transcript of the conversation between the deceased/appellant and the complainant Ajay Temre (PW-1) vide Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/10. He read over the transcript Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/10 to suggest that from the conversation it is quite vivid and established on record that the deceased/appellant demanded the illegal gratification of Rs.900/- from the complainant Ajay Kumar Temre (PW-1). He submits that the deceased/appellant was thereafter intercepted by the trap party and further proceedings were carried out from the evidence gathered from the statement of investigating officer and other panchnama witnesses, it is proved that the currency notes which was given to complainant Ajay Kumar Temre for giving it to deceased/appellant, are the same and it has been seized from the possession of the deceased/appellant. He further submits that the hands, cloths and currency notes turned pink which were washed by the Sodium Carbonate. This clearly goes to show that illegal gratification was demanded by the deceased/appellant and subsequently which was accepted by him. Learned Special Court has meticulously examined the witnesses brought before it and give a meritorious finding of conviction against the deceased/appellant which does not require any interference by this Court and the appeal deserved to be dismissed. -6- 8. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission and also perused the record with utmost circumspection. 9. To constitute the offence of an illegal gratification, there are three essential ingredients (i) demand, (ii) acceptance and (iii) recovery. 10. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Satyanarayan Murthy (supra) observed as under:- “23. The proof of demand of illegal gratification, thus, is the gravamen of the offence under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d)(i)&(ii) of the Act and in absence thereof, unmistakably the charge therefor, would fail. Mere acceptance of any amount allegedly by way of illegal gratification or recovery thereof, dehors the proof of demand, ipso facto, would thus not be sufficient to bring home the charge under these two sections of the Act. 26. In reiteration of the golden principle which runs through the web of administration of justice in criminal cases, this Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam (2013)12 SCC 406 had held that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution cannot afford to rest its case in the realm of “may be” true but has to upgrade it in the domain of “must be” true in order to steer clear of any possible surmise or conjecture. It was held, that the Court must ensure that miscarriage of justice is avoided and if in the facts and circumstances, two views are plausible, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused.” 11. In case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan (supra) Hon’ble Supreme Court observed 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 -7- 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–co accused (A-1). 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 vs. State of Kerala, (1996) 11 SCC 720),” 12. In the light of above view taken by the Supreme Court, this Court proceeds to examine the evidence on record to find out as to whether the prosecution has been able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by proving the demand, acceptance and recovery of illegal gratification. The prosecution in order to prove the aforesaid three ingredients, has examined Complainant Ajay Temra (PW-1) who has categorically deposed that the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 900/- to provide pensionary benefit to his mother. Complaint made by him has been exhibited as Ex.P-1. In his deposition before learned trial Court he has categorically deposed that his father was working in the Collector Office, Raipur who passed away on 07.02.1995. After retirement in the year 1994 he used to receive pension from Raipur and on his death, his pension was being received by her mother Kamla Bai (PW-2). He further deposed that for transfer of the pension to Rajnandgaon, he met the appellant who was working in the treasury and enquired about the delay in transfer of the pension upon which the appellant told him that money amounting to Rs. 1000/- would be needed. He further deposed that after coming to Raipur he made the complaint in the Lokayut Office on 07.10.1998 (Ex. P-1). Thereafter, Dilip Singh Rathore (PW-10) has stated that he was given a tape recorder with a direction to record the conversation. Panchnama to that effect was also prepared vide Ex. P- 2. He further deposed that on the next day i.e. 08.10.1998 at about 12 noon, he met the -8- appellant in the treasury office who was alone at that time. He recorded the conversation in the tape recorder given to him. He further deposed that on being requested to reduce the amount of money, the appellant agreed to do that by 50-100 rupees and eventually agreed at Rs. 900/-. This conversation between him and the accused was duly recorded. He further deposed that on 09.10.1998 at about 10:15 AM he went to the guest house near railway station where he met Armo, Kavar, Rathore who called one Tiwari Sahab and Khute Sahab and gave to them his introduction. The conversation in the tape recorder was heard and then he again gave a application to Rathore Sahab in the name of Lokayut requesting to speed up the proceedings which is marked as Ex. P-3 bearing his signature on “A to A” portion. Thereafter, a transcript was prepared which is Ex. P-4. He further deposed that the contains of the recorded version was one and the same as was conversed with the accused without any addition or omission. This witness further deposed that nine currency notes of hundred denomination were given to him and the numbers thereof were noted down. He was informed as to the effect of phenolphthalein powder on the currency notes. He further deposed that solution of sodium carbonate was prepared and except Tilak Ram, hands of all the persons were washed but the colour of the solution did not change. Thereafter, another solution was prepared and when the hands of Tilak Ram were washed, the solution turned pink. Constable Tilak Ram applied phenolphthalein power on the currency notes, put the same in the right pocket of his shirt and advised him not to touch the same. He was also inhibited to shake hand with the accused either before or after giving money to him. The tape recorder was returned vide Ex. P-5. It was again given to him with some other cassette with an instructions to record the conversation made while giving the currency notes vide Ex. P-6. The first cassette given by him by duly sealed which is evident from Ex. P-7. As instructed by Rathore Sahab, he went in the office of the accused, offered him salutation and when accused agreed to except money, he gave an amount of Rs. 900/- which the accused/appellant put on the back pocket of his pant. Thereafter, he got out of the room and signaled to the trap party by putting his hand on his head. On this the trap party came inside. -9- Rathore Sahab and Armo Sahab caught hold of the hand and of the accused and gave their introduction to him. On this the accused pleaded forgiveness by accepting his mistake. After the accused/appellant took out the currency notes and handed over the same to the trap party, they were found to the same as were given to him. They were dipped in the sodium carbonate solution which turned pink and such solution was kept in a sealed bottle. This witness has further stated that in the previously prepared solution, the hands of the persons except him and the accused were washed but the colour of the same did not change. The accused/appellant was made to put off his pant and when its back pockets was washed, the colour of the sodium carbonate solution turned pink. Thereafter, all the solutions so prepared were kept in separate sealed bottles and the pant of the accused/appellant was seized. This witness was subjected to lengthy cross-examination where he admits that on the date of incident the accused had asked him to bring his mother with the succession certificate and also the death certificate of his father. He has further admitted that he was told by the accused/appellant that he will not receive any payment. He has denied that he forcibly thrusted the money in the pocket of the accused/appellant to implicate in the false case. He himself deposed that deceased appellant was pleading forgiveness. 13. From the perusal of testimony of the complainant, it is quite vivid that the pension case of his mother was pending before the treasury office, Rajnandgaon. It is established from the record that the accused/appellant was the in-charge to looked after the pension matters. From (Ex. P-1) it is quite vivid that the complaint was made by the PW-1 with regard to payment of illegal gratification by the accused/appellant. The conversation between the appellant and the complainant (PW-1) was also reduced in writing and the transcript thereof is Ex. P-4. Learned counsel for the appellant made a submission that in the transcript, demand is not made by the appellant. Of course, in express terms the -10- transcript does not indicate the direct the demand of illegal gratification but the transcript clearly indicates that there was a conversation between the accused/appellant and the complainant with regard to transaction including the bargaining between the two. Apart from this, Ex. P-10 is another transcript of the conversation between the accused/appellant and the complainant dated 09.10.1998 which clearly indicates that the accused/appellant had asked as to how much amount was brought where the complainant (PW-1) is stated to have brought nine hundred. Therefore, from oral evidence of PW-1 complaint made by him in which he stated that illegal gratification is being asked and transcript vide Ex. P-4 & Ex. P- 10, this Court is unable to hold that the appellant did not make the demand of illegal gratification from the complainant for settling the pension matter of his mother. Hence, the contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the accused/appellant did not make any demand of illegal gratification is liable to be rejected. 14. The next ingredient to constitute the offence of illegal gratification is the acceptance. As discussed earlier, the complainant gave money to the accused/appellant which has been proved by the oral evidence of the complainant. In this context statement of PW-3 is relevant. He deposed in the same line of as of PW-1. He is the witness who had gone along with the complainant. He has stated that he had gone to the treasury office along with PW-1 and sat in a bench at the distance of 6-7 feet. He further deposed that the complainant took out the money and gave to the accused/appellant who kept it in the pocket of the pant. He further deposed that the complainant went out and made a signal upon which the lokayukt people came inside the office. He further deposed that two of the lokayukt people held the hand of the accused/appellant and introduced themselves. On this the accused excepted his mistake and he pleaded forgiveness. He further deposed that the money was taken out from the pocket of the accused/appellant, and was dipped in the sodium carbonate solution which turned pink and thereafter it was kept in a sealed bottle. Later on, he deposed in the same line for the proceeding carried out in the Lokayukt Office. Therefore, it is established from record that the accused/appellant accepted the illegal gratification. -11- 15. The next ingredient is the recovery of the illegal gratification. The same also stood proved from the statement of PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4. It is apparent on record Dilip Singh (PW-10). 16. An arguments was advanced by accused/appellant that the deceased appellant demanded succession certificate and other papers without which pension could not be started and therefore, as a counter blast, accused/appellant was falsely implicated. The prosecution brought its case on the strength that the pension of mother of the complainant to be started from Rajnandgaon and the accused/appellant demanded illegal gratification for the same. 17. Apart from this, Ex. P-27 C is the pension payment order in the name District Treasury Officer dated 31.07.1998. These documents also go to shows that necessary papers have been already forwarded to the District Treasury, Office Rajnandgoan but still the pension of mother of the appellant could not be started. Hence, the submission of learned counsel for the appellant that without the necessary papers the appellant could not started the pension is liable to be rejected. In the case in hand, the demand has duly been proved by the Statement of PW-1 and PW-3. So is the position with acceptance. This apart, the recovery is also proved as per the statement of PW-1, PW-2 and other witnesses. Therefore, the case law cited by the learned counsel for the appellant do not help the appellant. From the record it is apparent that the accuseed appellant was posted in the office of treasury office, Rajnandgaon and he was in-charge to looked after the affairs of the pension. This fact has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. It is also established from record, that the necessary papers required for initiation of family pension of the mother of the appellant are available with the treasury office, Rajnandgaon but still the pension could not be started. There was no occasion for the PW-1 to falsely implicate the accused/appellant. He has already stated that about 8-10 times he has met the deceased appellant and demand was made by him. -12- 18. The learned trial Court on appreciation of evidence available on record has given a categorical finding holding the accused/appellant guilty of the said offence. The finding so recorded does not appear to be perverse or contrary to the material available on record. Hence, the appeal has no merits and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19. Record of the Court below be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Pawan
Arguments
: Shri Ajay Kumar Pandey, Government Advocate. ________________________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput CAV Judgment 1. This appeal has been filed by the appellant (Mohan Lal Gahre) under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC), being aggrieved by the -2- judgment dated 04/05/2001, passed in Special case No. 02/1999 by the Special Judge, Rajnandgaon (C.G.) by which the appellant (Mohan Lal Gahre) has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner : Conviction Sentence Under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 01 years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months. Under Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 R.I. for 01 years fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. During the pendency of this appeal, appellant (Mohan Lal Gahre) has passed away and his Legal Representatives were permitted to prosecute the appeal and they were brought on record. 3. Allegations against the deceased/appellant (Mohan Lal Gahre) is that he demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 900/- from the complainant Ajay Temre (PW-1) in order to provide pensionary benefit to her Mother. At the relevant point of time, the deceased/appellant Mohan Lal Gehre was posted as Head Clerk at O/o. Treasury, Rajnandgaon. The complainant Ajay Temre (PW-1) was not inclined to give bribe to the deceased/appellant. Therefore, a complaint was made to the Lokayukt, Raipur which is marked as Ex.P/1. Thereafter a micro tape recorder was given to him (Ex.P/2) and he was made aware with regard to the procedure of the working of tape recorder and was asked to record the conversation between him and the deceased/appellant. The complainant along-with tape recorder reached to the deceased/appellant and after recording the conversation, he came back to the Lokayukt, Establishment. The conversation recorded in the tape recorder were reduced in writing and transcript was prepared vide Ex.P/4. Seizure of tape recorder and Panchnama was prepared vide -3- Ex.P/5 & Ex.P/6 respectively. Shri B.D.Tiwari (PW-3) and Shri Jagdevprasad Khunte (PW-7) were called as witnesses and trap party was prepared Panchama and seizure vide Ex.P/7 Ex.P/8 & Ex.P/9 respectively. Thereafter, another transcript (telephonically) was recorded on 09/10/1998 (Ex.P/10) in which deceased / appellant was demanded Rs.900/- as a bribe for which was prepared as Panchnama of the tape recorder vide Ex.P/11 and seized vide Ex.P/12 respectively and thereafter Panchanama of tape recorder was prepared vide Ex.P/6. Serial number of the currency notes were recorded which was poured in Phenapthalene Powder. On 09/10/1998, the trap party reached to the Pension Branch, Rajnandgaon, the members of the trap party were standing outside. Complainant Ajay Temre (PW-1) met with the deceased/appellant in the Pension Branch. The deceased/appellant demanded the money where the complainant gave the money and the deceased/appellant kept it in his pocket. The complainant went out and gave an indication to the trap party and they entered in the office, and found the money in the pocket of the paint of deceased/appellant. Hands of the deceased/appellant was washed with Sodium Carbonate and the currency notes were also washed and their color became pink. His paint was also washed by the solution which also turned pink. Solutions bottle, Hand washed solution (appellant finger), Currency note solution, Hand washed solution (appellant), Paint solution were sealed and seized which is marked Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14 and sent for chemical examination Sagar (M.P.) marked as Ex.P/34. Spot map was prepared (Ex.P/15). After Investigation was completed after obtaining necessary sanctioned from the then State of Madhya Pradesh, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/32) was prepared and thereafter Charge-sheet was filed. 4. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited as many as 34 documents. Statement of the appellant under section 313 of the CrPC was recorded -4- in which he took a defense of false implication. One witness D/1 was also examined at the time of telephonic talk of the deceased/appellant. Defense witness DW/1 (I.L. Katlam) was also examined. 5. By the impugned judgment learned Court below has held the accused /appellant guilty and imposed the sentence on him as described above which is under challenge in this appeal. 6. Learned Counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that the prosecution was not able to bring home the guilt of the deceased/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. She submits that in order to convict the deceased/appellant under Section 7 and 13 (2) of PC Act, the prosecution was require to prove demand as well as acceptance and in the case in hand, the demand was not proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution. Hence, the benefit of doubt ought to have been extended to the deceased/appellant. She submits that the appellant was working as a Chief Clerk at Treasury and the complainant wanted to get the pension case of her mother started from the Treasury in absence of necessary document like succession certificate, the same could not have started and the same was also intimated to the complainant Ajay Temre (PW-1), despite of that he was regularly coming and pressurizing the complainant to start the pension of her mother. In absence of the necessary document there was no occasion for the deceased/appellant to demand the illegal gratification as alleged as even if the demand was fulfilled, he could have not done anything to start the pension of the complainant. Reading from the statement of the complainant (PW-1) and her mother Kamla Bai ( PW-2). She tried to canvas for this Court that the deceased/appellant never a made demand from the complainant and therefore she submits that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the conviction against the deceased/appellant may be set aside. To buttress her submissions, she placed reliance upon the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of P. Satyanarayan Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police, -5- State of Andhra Pradesh and another reported in (2015) 10 SCC 152 and in case of Dashrath Singh Chauhan Vs. Central Bureau of Investigation reported in (2019)