AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
The present appeal has arisen out of an order passed by learned Special Judge, Satna on 8.12.2003 convicting appellant No.1, Ram Kumar Gupta for an offence punishable under Sections 7 read with 13(1)(d) and 13 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and his wife Mamta Gupta appellant No.2 under Section 201 of the I.P.C. During the pendency of the appeal, the appellant No.1 died on 11.10.2013. On an application filed by his wife, she was permitted to pursue the appeal on behalf of the appellant No.1 as well.
The prosecution case was set on motion on the statement of Surya Bali Singh (PW-9) that the accused Ram Kumar Gupta demanded a sum of Rs.500/- to carry out the measurements to facilitate payment of the works carried out by the complainant. As per the prosecution case, Surya Bali Singh reached the house of the accused with Rs.500/- i.e. five currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100/- each on which phenolphthalein powder was applied on 28th July, 1988 at about 16:30 p.m. After the money was given to Ram Kumar, he gave the said money to his wife to get exchange with the money of the smaller denomination. The wife then visited the house of Mrs. Sharda Yadav on the first floor of the same building and got the money exchanged and gave it to her husband. At that time, the investigating team subjected Ram Kumar to hand wash with solution of Sodium Carbonate. Even the hands of the appellant No.2 were also subjected to test, which also turned pink and so were the currency notes, which were recovered from the possession of Sharda Yadav. During the investigation, the trouser of Ram Kumar Gupta was also subjected to test of sodium carbonate. That trouser also turned pink.
After completion of the investigation, Ram Kumar Gupta (since deceased) and Mamta were tried for the offences punishable under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section 201 of the I.P.C. respectively.
During the trial, Surya Bali Singh, the complainant was examined as PW-9. He did not support the prosecution version and was declared turned hostile.
The prosecution examined Arun Pratap Singh as PW-7, who is friend of the complainant. He supported the prosecution version regarding demand of Rs.500/- in his presence by Ram Kumar Gupta and also handing over money to him. He deposed that he went with Surya Bali Singh to the house of the accused and after tea, Surya Bali Singh handed over Rs.500/- to the accused, which money was kept in his pocket. Ram Kumar Gupta (since deceased) came to see them off and at that stage, on signal being given; trap team entered into the house of the accused and started the test.
During the pendency of the appeal, appellant Ram Kumar died and his name has been deleted from the array of appellants vide order dated 06.02.2014. His wife has been permitted to represent him in the matter of challenging the conviction imposed upon him. Though, Surya Bali Singh (PW-9) has turned hostile but the statement of PW-7 Arun Singh has completely supported the prosecution version of demand of Rs.500/- and also of handing over five currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each. As per the other evidence, such currency notes turned pink due to Sodium Carbonate, so were the hands of the accused Ram Kumar Gupta as well as his trouser. The hands of accused Mamta, who was handed over Rs.500/- for exchange, also turned pink as well hands of Sharda. The turned pink currency notes were recovered from the possession of Mrs. Sharda Yadav, who has appeared as PW-10 and deposed in the manner set up by the prosecution.
In view of the evidence led by the prosecution, we do not find any error in the findings recorded by the trial Court convicting Ram Kumar Gupta for an offence punishable under Section 7, 13 (1)(d) and 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.
However, we find that the conviction of appellant No.2 for an offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C. is not made out. Though, the learned counsel for the respondent relied upon the statement of PW-9 Surya Bali Singh to contend that the money of Rs.500/- was given to the accused in the presence of his wife but the said witness has stated that Ram Kumar Gupta refused to take money but on his insisting, the money was given to him for the purpose of exchange.
On the other hand, Arun Pratap Singh (PW-7) deposed that he and Surya Bali Singh had tea with Ram Kumar Gupta and after tea, accused Ram Kumar came to see them off. However, he has not deposed that the wife of Ram Kumar Gupta was present at the time of serving of tea and thereafter till such time Ram Kumar Gupta came outside the house to see them off. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to prove that wife Mamta Gupta was aware of the fact that Rs. 500/- which is said to have been given by Surya Bali Singh was a tainted money. It is a normal conduct of the husband asking wife to get the money exchanged and accordingly the wife Mamta has gone to Mrs. Sharda Yadav, living on the first floor of the house, to get the money exchanged.
Therefore, in the absence of having knowledge that Rs.500/- given to Mamta for exchange, were part of the illegal gratification given to Ram Kumar Gupta, she cannot be convicted for an offence under Section 201 of the I.P.C.
Consequently, the appeal is allowed qua appellant No.2 and the judgment of the learned trial Court is set aside to that extent whereas the appeal on behalf of Ram Kumar Gupta since deceased is dismissed.