State of Madhya Pradesh vs Ram Singh Bodana

M.C. Garg, J.—This appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh aggrieved of the judgment delivered by Special Judge, acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him u/s 7, 13(1) (d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 in S.T. No. 3/98. In brief the allegations of the prosecution is that on the date of incident, Auto-rickshaw bearing registration No. MP-13-B/1481 of Devanand was driven by Shankarlal, which met with an accident. The vehicle was seized by Police Station Mahakal Ujjain. Devanand filed an application for Supurdhari before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ujjain. Vide an order dated 30.07.1992, the Magistrate vide Ex. P-7 gave Supurdhari of the vehicle to Devanand. Devanand and Shankarlal placed this order before the accused, the Investigating officer of this case, who demanded in total Rs. 500/-(Rs. 200/- for himself and Rs. 300/- for Government Advocate). Shankarlal alongwith Devanand lodged a complaint Ex. P-2 before Lokayukta Police Establishment, Ujjain.

The report lodged by the complainant Shankarlal is Ex. P-2 which reads as under:-

Further proceedings which were taken by the prosecution after the receipt of the complaint stands mentioned in paragraph 3 (b) and 3(c) of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder:-

As far as the respondent is concerned, it was his case that he has been falsely implicated. He led no defence evidence. The trial Court after examining the evidence which came on record found number of infirmities in the proceedings undertaken by the appellant and came to the conclusion that there was doubt in the story of the prosecution and thus acquitted the respondent.

Primarily, the Special Judge while acquitting the respondent of the charges framed against him has not only noticed omission and commission of the statement of the complainant but also found lot of infirmities about the samples having been sent to the FSL and the report of the FSL besides other infirmities.

In this case leave to file an appeal was granted vide orders passed by this Court on July 16, 1999. Notice was also sent to the respondent, but nobody appeared for the respondent to oppose the appeal filed by the appellant.

We have gone through the record. As per Ex. P-2, the FIR of this case was registered at the instance of Shankarlal who appeared as PW-2. In this case, before registration of the FIR, a tape recorder was also given to the complainant. However, the tape recorder version has not been found to be in order by the trial Judge. The notes which are allegedly passed over to the complainant were recovered from his purse. Here is some lacuna even with respect to the evidence of demand. The Court has not found the recording of the incident in the tape recorder very trust worthy. The voice of the accused was not identified in the FIR version. In this regard paragraphs 11 to 16 are relevant which are reproduced hereunder:-

As regard the samples which were sent to FSL regarding using of sodium carbonate solution also, some discrepancies have been noticed by the trial Judge, inasmuch as admittedly at the time when the alleged rain was going on because of that notes were washed away with the water. Reference can be made to paragraphs 27 and 28 of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder:-

The very fact that the complainant allegedly visited the house of the accused thrice right from 10 A.M. to 5 P.M. itself caused doubt on the story of the prosecution. There are also discrepancies in the seizure of the money as noticed by the trial Judge in para 29 and 30 of the judgment which are reproduced hereunder:

There was also non-compliance of Section 157 of the CPC in sending the FIR immediately to the Magistrate concerned. In this regard, the trial Court has taken note of the violation in para 31 and 32 of the judgment which reads as under:-

The conduct of the complainant has also been noticed by the trial Court and it has been observed that Shankarlal had malice to implicate the accused. Reference can be made to para 39 of the judgment which reads as under:-

The trial Court has further observed that in the circumstances of this case and finding lacuna in the glass bottles sent to CFL which were having questionable seals as mentioned in para 42 of the judgment. There was necessity to have independent witness which is an element missing in this case. The trial Court has discussed the evidence of the witnesses which came on record to highlight the omission and commission. Paragraph 44 of the judgment is reproduced hereunder:

There are also discrepancies about the demand. Reference in this regard is made to para 47 of the judgment which reads as under:

Considering all these aspects, the trial Court found that in this case, the case of the prosecution was not proved beyond reasonable doubt and thus acquitted the accused/respondent. Having gone through the record of the case and after hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/Lokayukta, we are satisfied that in this case, the view taken to fasten the liability upon the respondent cannot be taken in the facts and circumstances of this case. Thus, we do not find it a fit case where the appeal filed by the appellant should be allowed. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.

C.C. as per rules.