Page 1

Reportable

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL  APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1917  OF 2008

Indra Vijay Alok ... Appellant

Versus

State of Madhya Pradesh         … Respondent

J U D G M E N T

PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.

This appeal is directed against judgment and order dated

31.8.2007,  passed  by  the  High  Court  of  Madhya  Pradesh,

Jabalpur (Gwalior Bench), whereby said Court has dismissed

Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2000, and affirmed conviction and

sentence  recorded  against  accused  Indra  Vijay  Alok  under

Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of Prevention

and Corruption Act,  1988 by  the  Special  Judge,  Datiya,  in

Special Case No. 1 of 1992.

Page 2

Page 2 of 9

2. We  have  heard  learned  counsel  for  the  parties  and

perused the papers on record.

3. Prosecution  story,  in  brief,  is  that  a  piece  of  land  in

Badoni Khurd was in the name of one Badri, younger brother

of PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant). Appellant Indra Vijay Alok

was the Patwari of Halka area during the relevant period, i.e.

in  1987.  After  death of  Badri,  complainant  and his  mother

Bhagobai  sought  mutation  of  their  names  in  the  revenue

record. When Bhagobai, mother of the complainant, met the

appellant in this connection, he demanded Rs. 1900/- out of

which she paid Rs. 900/-. When Complainant (PW-3) came to

his village, his mother told him about the demand made by the

appellant. On this, on 18.05.1987 he (PW-3) himself met the

appellant, who clearly told him that unless further Rs.1000/-

is  paid  to  him,  the  mutation  would  not  be  done.   This

compelled  PW-3  Ram  Singh  (complainant)  to  make  a

complaint (Ext.P-3) on 17.6.1987 to Superintendent of Police

(Vigilance),  Gwalior.   A trap was laid, headed by PW-4 B.L.

Vashist  (Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police)  in  which  PW-2

Ashok Bhargava (Deputy Collector) and one Sahir (DW-6) were

Page 3

Page 3 of 9

panch witnesses.  Before trap, ten currency notes of Rs.100/-

of the complainant were applied phenolphthalein powder, and

a  memorandum  (Ext.P-4)  was  prepared.   As  per  the  plan,

PW-3 Ram Singh and panch witness Sahir were followed by

PW-2 Ashok Bhargav,  Deputy  Collector,  PW-4 B.L.  Vashist,

Deputy  Superintendent  of  Police,  and  PW-6  Inspector

Raghuraj Shastri.  When the team reached the house of the

appellant in Khidki, Distt. Datiya, and the appellant accepted

the  amount  of  Rs.1000/-,  a  signal  was  given  to  the  police

party, which immediately caught the appellant and his hands

were  washed  in  water  in  a  bucket,  which  turned  red.

Thereafter, the raiding party asked the appellant to take out

Rs.1000/-  accepted  by  him  from  PW-3  Ram  Singh.  The

currency  notes  recovered  tallied  with  the  memorandum

(Ext.P-4) and fresh panchnama was prepared.  Thereafter, the

appellant  was  arrested  and  crime  was  registered.   After

investigation, the Investigating Officer R.S. Parihar (since died)

filed the charge sheet against the appellant Indra Vijay Alok

for his trial in respect of offences punishable under Sections 7

Page 4

Page 4 of 9

and  13(1)(d)  read  with  Section  13(2)  of  Prevention  of

Corruption Act, 1988.

4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, appears to have

framed  charge  against  the  accused  to  which  the  accused

pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 R.R.-Vishwa

Deva (clerk in Collector’s office), PW-2 Ashok Bhargav (Deputy

Collector), PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant), PW-4 B.L. Vashisth

(Deputy Superintendent of Police), PW-5 S.R. Tiwari (Assistant

Grade I), and PW-6 Raghuraj Shastri (Inspector).

6. Prosecution evidence was put to the accused Indra Vijay

Alok, in reply to which he only admitted that he was Patwari of

the Halka at the relevant period, and there was land in the

village recorded in the name of Badri, but as to the rest of the

evidence he denied the same as incorrect.

7. In defence, the appellant got examined DW-1 Baijnath,

DW-2  Ram  Swaroop,  DW-3  Hardas,  DW-4  Swami  Sharan

Saxena, DW-5 Sita Ram Gupta, and DW-6 Sahir.

Page 5

Page 5 of 9

8. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the

evidence of  PW-3 Ram Singh and statement  given by PW-2

Ashok Bhargav (Deputy Collector) read with the statements of

other  prosecution  witnesses,  and the  documents  proved  on

record,  leave no room of  doubt that  the accused demanded

Rs.1000/- from PW-3 Ram Singh for getting entered his name

and that of his mother in place of Badri in the revenue record,

and  Rs.1000/-  was  given  to  and  accepted  by  the  accused

when the trap was laid, and the same was recovered from the

pocket  of  his  pant.  Thereafter,  the  trial  court  heard  the

accused  on  sentence,  and  sentenced  him  to  rigorous

imprisonment for a period of one year and directed to pay fine

of Rs.1000/- under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988.  The accused was further convicted under Section

13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to

rigorous imprisonment for a period of two years and directed

to pay fine of Rs.1000/-.  For each of the defaults in payment

of  fine,  the  convict  was  directed  to  undergo  further  three

months rigorous imprisonment.

Page 6

Page 6 of 9

9. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated 10.2.2000,

passed by Special Judge, Datiya in Special Case No. 1 of 1992,

the convict Indra Vijay Alok preferred appeal before the High

Court  which  was  registered  as  Criminal  Appeal  No.  102  of

2000.  The  High  Court,  after  hearing  the  parities,

re-appreciated the evidence and concurred with the conviction

and sentence recorded by the trial court.  Hence this appeal

through special leave.

10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us that

the panch witness Sahir  has not supported the prosecution

case, as such the courts below have erred in law in believing

the  prosecution story.   Having gone through the papers on

record,  we  do  not  find  substance  in  the  argument.  The

statement of PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant) gets corroborated

by the statement of PW-4 B.L. Vashist (Deputy Superintendent

of Police), as well as by PW-2 Ashok Bhargav, Deputy Collector

who is superior officer of the appellant’s own department.  As

such we find that the courts below have committed no error of

law in relying on the testimony of above three witnesses as

trustworthy,  against  the  statement  of  DW-6  Sahir,  who

Page 7

Page 7 of 9

appears to have been won over by the defence. We are of the

opinion that merely for the reason that DW-6 Sahir has not

supported  prosecution  case,  the  ring  of  truth  in  the

prosecution  case  is  not  shaken  in  the  present  case,

particularly, when the statements of remaining witnesses are

credible and trustworthy.

11. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant

that the Investigating Officer R.S. Parihar was not examined

by the prosecution.  This, in our opinion, has no legs for the

reason that it has come on the record that the Investigating

Officer R.S. Parihar had died when the prosecution evidence

was recorded.

12. Lastly,  it  is  submitted  on  behalf  of  the  appellant  that

Bhagobai, mother of the complainant, from whom demand was

allegedly made, was not examined, as such it cannot be said

that the amount so recovered from the appellant has anything

to do with the mutation.  We have carefully gone through the

deposition  of  PW-3  Ram  Singh  in  the  original  record,  and

found  that  he  has  clearly  stated  that  initial  demand  of

Rs.1900/- was made to his mother, who paid Rs.900/- to the

Page 8

Page 8 of 9

appellant, but when he came back to his village, his mother

told him that further Rs.1000/- was required to be arranged.

PW-3 Ram Singh further told the court that on this, he himself

went to the appellant and requested not to demand further

money,  but  he  (appellant)  did  not  relent.   In  the

circumstances,  according  to  PW-3,  he  went  to  Lokayukta

Office  and  made  a  complaint,  but  the  Office  of  Lokayukta

advised him to reach to Rest House, Datiya.  On this, he went

to  the  Rest  House,  Datiya  and  made  a  complaint  to  the

Vigilance Department and thereafter  trap was laid,  and the

amount of Rs.1000/- was given by him to the appellant and

recovered from him (appellant). Even otherwise, presumption

can be drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption

Act, 1988, regarding the motive of receiving the gratification

unless it is rebutted.  In the present case, in our opinion, the

presumption does not stand rebutted.

13. Having considered submissions of learned counsel for the

appellant and learned counsel for the State, and after going

through the papers on record, we do not find any illegality in

Page 9

Page 9 of 9

appreciation of evidence by the courts below.  We further agree

with the sentence recorded against the appellant by the trial

court and affirmed by the High Court against the appellant.

Sanction of prosecution is also proved on the record by PW-5

S.R. Tiwari.  The request of learned counsel for the appellant

to  reduce  the  period  of  sentence  to  the  period  already

undergone  too  cannot  be  accepted,  in  the  facts  and

circumstances of the present case.

14. For the reasons, as discussed above, we are not inclined

to  interfere  with  the  impugned  order  passed  by  the  High

Court.  Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed.  The bail granted

to the appellant Indra Vijay Alok is cancelled.  The trial court

shall take him into custody to serve out the remaining part of

the sentence.

……………….....…………J.                                         [Ranjan Gogoi]

.……………….……………J. New Delhi;  [Prafulla C. Pant] August 31, 2015.