D.K. Bhate vs State of M.P.

Conviction u/S,Sentence Awarded,Fine amount

Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988",One year R.I.,Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation.

Sec. 13(1) (D) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988","03 years R.I.,",

8.1 A bare perusal of testimony of PW-6, especially para 4 and 11 makes it clear that amount of Rs. 2000/- by way of illegal gratification was not",,

only demanded by appellant but was also offered by the complainant and accepted by the appellant. The investigating officer PW-9 in para 29 of,,

his testimony though states that the solution in which the fingers of the appellant were dipped after he was caught red-handed did not turn pink but,,

explained that if the notes are not touched by the appellant then the solution remains white in colour. On the other hand, PW-6 has categorically",,

testified that only after receiving Rs.2000/- as bribe the appellant returned the necessary record of the hostel to the complainant. The complainant,,

has also stated in para 2 that the numbers of the notes recovered also tallied with those given to complainant and the appellant''s hand were dipped,,

in the solution leading to the solution turning pink in colour. PW-6 has also stated that notes were also dipped in the solution which turned pink.,,

8.2 The attempt on the part of the appellant in assassinating the character of the investigating officer cannot be of much avail since the criminal,,

antecedents of I.O. by itself do not render the investigation conducted by him vitiated. The contention of the appellant that notes were not smeared,,

with phenolphthalein powder is denied by PW-7 Naresh Jatav in para 2 of his testimony by categorically disclosing that the notes were smeared by,,

phenolphthalein powder.,,

8.3 The order of grant of sanction for prosecution is attacked for having been passed by incompetent authority. A bare perusal of the sanction,,

order dated 10.06.1993 Ex.P-15 reflects that the same has been issued in the name and by order of Governor of the State of M.P. by Additional,,

Secretary of Dept of Law and Legislative Affairs Department. Since the order is signed by Additional Secretary namely Shri S.C. Gupta, it does",,

not become the order of the Additional Secretary. The said order has been passed in terms of the rules of business framed u/ Art. 154 of the,,

Constitution of India which vests the executive power of the State in the Governor to be exercised by him either directly or through officers,,

subordinate to him in terms of the provision of the Constitution. Thus, the sanction for prosecution has been accorded by the highest executive",,

functionary of the State of M.P., who is competent to do so.",,

In view of the above, the prosecution was successful in proving the case of demand, payment and receipt of illegal gratification by the appellant",,

beyond all reasonable doubts. Therefore, no interference in the impugned order of conviction and sentence rendered by learned trial judge is called",,

for.,,

The judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant are distinguishable on the facts as the evidence adduced by prosecution is,,

sufficient to prove the charges alleged against the appellant u/Ss. 7 & 13(1) (D) read with Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.",,

In view of the above, the present appeal deserves to be and is hereby rejected.",,