Lalit Shrivastava vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2022 Latest Caselaw 977 MP

                                   1
        The High Court Of Madhya Pradesh
                 CRA No. 6360 of 2021
                (LALIT SHRIVASTAVA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

Indore, Dated : 20-01-2022
      Heard through Video Conferencing.

      Shri Gourav Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant.
      Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the respondent/ State.

Let the record of the trial Court be called for.

Heard on I.A.No.27645/2021, which is an application under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C for suspension of sentence filed on behalf of appellant -

Lalit Shrivastava.

The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 7 and 13(1)

(d) r/w Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and R.I. for four years with fine of Rs.10,000/- respectively, with default stipulation vide judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.10.2021 passed by Special Judge(Prevention of Corruption Act), Ujjain in case No. SC LOK/07/2018.

Prosecution story in brief is that, appellant being a Revenue Inspector, Tehsil Ujjain demanded an amount of Rs.15,000/- as illegal gratification from

the complainant- Lakhan Singh for demarcating his agricultural land bearing Survey Nos.77 and 445 total area 1.00 hectare situated in village Hasanpura, Ujjain. Complainant did not want to pay the aforesaid amount, therefore, he made a written complaint dated 19.05.2017 before the Superintendent of Police, Lokayukt, Ujjain who arranged a trap, wherein on 20.05.2017, Lokayukt Police caught the appellant red handed receiving tainted currency of an amount of Rs.10,000/- from the complainant as illegal gratification at his Tehsil Office - Ujjain.

Learned counsel for appellant submits that at the relevant time, appellant was posted as Revenue Inspector, Circle-2, while land in question situated in Village Hasanpura, Ujjain falls under the Revenue Inspector, Circle-1 and prosecution has failed to prove the fact that charge of Circle-1

was bestowed upon the appellant. There was no occasion for the appellant to demand illegal gratification from the complainant for demarcating his land situated at different circle. There is a lot of discrepancies in the time duration of the voice recording of the conversation, said to be made between the appellant and the complainant, as memory card shows the recording time to be 48 minutes and 41seconds, while evidence shows the recording time to be

1 hour, 46 minutes and 45 seconds whereas Panch Witness Tulsiram Chhanta (PW-3) deposed that voice recording was of 10 minutes. CD containing voice recording is of Sony Company whereas in the certificate under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act is shown as Frontek Company. The tainted currency was not seized from the possession of the appellant. His hands were not turned pink when dipped in sodium carbonate solution which in itself shows that appellant did not touch the aforesaid currency. Hence, neither demand nor recovery of tainted currency have been proved, therefore, learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant and impugned order deserves to be set aside. Appellant is an old aged person aged about 59 years. There is no likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. He has relied upon the order of co-ordinate Bench of this Court passed in CRA No.9843/2019 vide order dated 07.01.2020 to bolster his submissions. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of the bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has vehemently opposed the application and referring the statements of Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-7), Reader to Additional Tehsildar, Ujjain and also complainant's application (Exhibit P/10-1) for demarcating his land submitted that Nayab Tehsildar has specifically marked the aforesaid application to the appellant on 30.01.2017 and the same was sent by the above witness to the appellant with his endorsement. He further submits that all the records with regard to the demarcation of the complainant's land were seized from the possession of the appellant. Therefore, arguments with regard to the fact that the appellant was

not having occasion to demand the money from the complainant is not acceptable. Voice recording of the conversation between the appellant and complainant and its transcripts, with regard to demand and acceptance of tainted currency, has been produced and legally proved, as the appellant denied to give his voice sample, learned trial Court has not committed any error in finding the fact that demand and acceptance of money is proved beyond reasonable doubt. He has relied upon the judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Maharastra Vs. Balakrishna Dattatrya Kumbhar passed in Criminal Appeal No.1648/2012 decided on 15.10.2012 to bolster his submissions. In the aforesaid circumstances, no case for suspension of sentence and grant of the bail is made out in favour of

the appellant.

Perusal of the record reveals that complainant - Lakhan Singh submitted his application (Exhibit P/10-1) for demarcating his agricultural land situated in Revenue Circle-1, Ujjain, where the appellant was posted as Revenue Inspector, Circle - 2. Above application was endorsed vide order dated 30.01.2017 by Nayab Tehsildar to the appellant and Reader to Additional Tehsildar, Bhagwati Prasad Sharma (PW-7) has supported the aforesaid fact and stated that he sent the said application alongwith his endorsement to the appellant. Hence, considering the fact that records related to the demarcation of complainant's land are said to be seized from the possession of the appellant, it cannot be said that the appellant was not having any occasion to demand of money from the complainant. Transcript Panchnama (Exhibit P/12) of voice recording of the appellant and complainant supports the fact that appellant demanded and directed the complainant to place the tainted currency on the window of his Tehsil Office, Ujjain and appellant himself vide letter dated 23.11.2017 (Exhibit P/43) denied to give his voice sample, only on the basis of discrepancies in the duration of voice recording in the memory card etc., at this stage, it cannot be said that the same was tampered or manipulated.

Hence, considering overall facts and circumstances of the case and also period of incarceration suffered by the appellant, in view of this Court, at this stage no case is made out for suspension of remaining sentence of the appellant and there is sufficient material to reject the application under Section 389 of Cr.P.C. Consequently, I.A.No.27645/2021 is rejected on merits.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE

Vibha VIBHA PACHORI 2022.01.22 10:06:32 +05'30'