Madhya Pradesh High Court
Rajendra Lakhoria vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 12 October, 2022
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1 Cr.A.No.7809/2022
(Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.)
Indore : Dated 12.10.2022
Shri Sachin Bhatnagar, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri R.S.Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent/SPE.
Heard on admission.
The appeal is admitted for final hearing.
Also heard on I.A.No.12173/2022, which is first application filed
under Section 389(1) of Cr.P.C. for suspension of sentence on behalf of
the appellant.
The trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 7, 13(1)
of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo three years
RI with fine of Rs.2,500/- and four years' RI with fine of Rs.5,000/-
respectively with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and
order of sentence dated 29.8.2022 passed by Special Judge (Prevention
of Corruption Act)/1st Addl.Sessions Judge, West Nimar Mandleshwar in
SC LOK No.300004/2016.
Prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant is a practicing
Lawyer and applied for certified copy of document in Diversion Case
bearing No.151/2012-13 and 87/A-02/14-15. Applicant being Head
Copyist in the office of Collector, Barwani demanded an amount of
Rs.500/- as illegal gratification from the complainant for providing
aforesaid certified copy. Complainant recorded the aforesaid
conversation in his mobile phone and made a written complaint dated
28.5.2015 to the Supdt.of Police, Special Police Establishment,
Lokayukt, which was marked to Inspector Asha Sejkar, who after
(Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.)
verification of the complaint made transcript Panchnama of the
conversation recorded between complainant and appellant. She organized
trap, where appellant was caught red handed accepting the tainted
currency of Rs.500/- from the appellant.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that complainant is in
habit of making such complaints and has admitted in his cross-
examination that he made several complaints against several public
servants. He further submits that conversation recorded with regard to
demand of bribe money has not been found proved by the trial Court,
therefore, transcript Panchnama prepared in this regard is inadmissible.
Complainant himself demanded change of Rs.500/- from the appellant
and after getting change of Rs.500/- gave tainted note of Rs.500/- to the
appellant. The whole prosecution case is false and fabricated. Appellant
has wrongly been convicted for the aforesaid offences. There is no
likelihood of hearing of appeal in near future. 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 opposed the prayer
and referring to the transcript Panchnama submits that appellant
demanded Rs.500/- for supply of certified copy of the document. On the
date of incident he was caught red handed accepting the tainted currency
of Rs.500/-. His hands as well as pocket of the shirt turned pink.
Prosecution has proved its case against the appellant. Offences alleged
(Rajendra Vs. State of M.P.)
against the appellant are of serious in nature, therefore, he is not entitled
for grant of bail.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
As voice recording with regard to demand of bribe money has not
been found proved by the trial Court, presence of one mute person at the
time of incident has been admitted by the appellant, therefore,
considering the statement of the complainant (PW-3) as well as statement
of defence witnesses Jiyalal Bhalse (DW-1) and also considering the
amount of the alleged bribe money and overall material produced on
record, but without expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the
application is allowed and jail sentence of the appellant shall remain
suspended.
It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already
not deposited, he shall be released on bail, on his furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along
with solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of trial Court,
for his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 12.12.2022,
and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard,
till final disposal of this appeal.
I.A.is allowed.
List for final hearing in due course.
C.C. as per rules.
(Satyendra Kumar Singh)
Judge
Patil
Digitally signed by
SHAILESH PATIL
Date: 2022.10.13
10:06:03 +05'30'
