Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Keenal Tripathi vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 29 August, 2023
Author: Satyendra Kumar Singh
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT GWALIOR
CRIMINAL APPEAL No.8165 of 2022
(SMT. KEENAL TRIPATHI Vs. THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
DATED : 29-08-2023
Shri Vijay Dutt Sharma - Advocate for appellant.
Shri Ajay Kumar Chaturvedi - Advocate for
respondent/Lokayukt.
Heard on I.A.No.119/2023, which is first application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail moved on behalf of appellant.
2. The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Sections 7 and
13 (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act
vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6/9/2022
passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Shivpuri in
Case No. SC LOK 01/2018 and sentenced her as under:-
Conviction Sentence
Section Act Imprisonment Fine Imprisonment
in lieu of fine
7 PC, Act Three years RI Rs.5,000/- 3 months RI
13 (2) r/w 13 PC, Act Four years RI Rs.5,000/- 3 months RI
(1) (d)
3. Prosecution case in brief is that as per order No.3709 dated
11/8/2015 issued by the Office of Zila Panchayat, Shivpuri, Rati Indira
Gandhi Swasahayata Samuh was assigned the work of distribution of
midday meal in the Shaskiya Madhyamik Vidyalaya, Badora.
Complainant's mother, as President of the aforesaid Swasahayata Samuh
was engaged in the distribution of midday meal and complainant
assisted his mother in her aforesaid work. On 5/10/2016 appellant, who
was posted as Task Manager, Midday Meal Distribution Programme,
Zila Panchayat Shivpuri, inspected complainant's mother's Swasahayata
Samuh and found irregularities therein and threatened to get the
permission cancelled, on the basis of which a show-cause notice No.984
dated 10/10/2016 was served by the Sub-Divisional Magistrate to the
complainant's mother. On 25/11/2016 complainant approached the
appellant to get resolve the issue whereupon appellant demanded an
amount of Rs.25,000/- as illegal gratification. Complainant again
approached the appellant on the same day in the evening, whereupon
appellant agreed to take Rs.5,000/- and demanded an amount of
Rs.20,000/- within three days. Complainant recorded her conversation
with regard to demand of bribe and on 30/11/2016 made written
complaint to SP, Special Police Establishment, Lokayukt, Gwalior,
which was marked to Inspector, Shailja Gupta for further action.
Transcript Panchnama of the conversation of the appellant with regard
to demand of bribe money was prepared, FIR was lodged and a trap was
organized, wherein she was caught red handed accepting the tainted
currency notes amounting to Rs.25,000/-.
4. Learned counsel for the appellant referring para 26 of the
statement of complainant Ramesh Jatav (PW-1) submits that admittedly
about one year prior to the incident appellant inspected complainant's
mother's Swasahayata Samuh and after finding some irregularities,
recommended to cancel her permission. He submits that complainant
was annoyed with the appellant's aforesaid act and only because of that
he made false and fabricated complaint against the appellant. He further
submits that admittedly notice dated 10/10/2016 was given by the Sub-
Divisional Magistrate to the complainant's mother and proceedings
were pending before the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, therefore, there was
no occasion on the part of the appellant to demand bribe from the
complainant. Learned Trial Court has found the recorded conversation
said to be made between the appellant and the complainant as
inadmissible. From the statements of the complainant Ramesh Jatav
(PW-1) as well as Investigating Officer Shailja Gupta (PW-14) it is
apparent that during the trap complainant entered into appellant's office
in her absence. Independent witness Ravindra Singh Tomar (PW-2) in
para 32 of his statement admitted that the drawer of appellant's mez was
opened, therefore, probability to place the tainted currency notes in the
drawer in absence of appellant cannot be denied. From the statement of
the complainant himself, it is apparent that prior to re-entering into
appellant's room, complainant's hands were not dipped in the sodium
carbonate solution. In these circumstances, the whole prosecution case
becomes doubtful, even then appellant has been convicted for the
aforesaid offences. Appellant is a lady aged about 52 years and is in
custody since 6/9/2022 and has suffered till now about one year's
incarceration, out of the maximum jail sentence of four years awarded
to her. There is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future.
Therefore, her remaining jail sentence be suspended and she be enlarged
on bail.
5. Learned counsel for the respondent/Lokayukt has opposed the
prayer and submits that from the statement of complainant, which is
supported by written complaint dated 30/11/2016, this fact is
established that appellant demanded bribe money from him to resolve
the issue. She was caught red handed accepting the tainted currency
notes. Her hands turned pink when dipped in the sodium carbonate
solution. Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt.
Learned Trial Court has not committed any error in convicting the
appellant for the offences mentioned above. Offences alleged against
the appellant are serious in nature. In view of the aforesaid, the
appellant is not entitled to be released on bail.
6. Heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the record.
7. Having considered the rival submissions, material pointed out by
the learned counsel for the appellant, specially with regard to the fact
that during trap complainant entered into appellant's room in her
absence, so also the period of custody of the appellant and the fact that
there is no likelihood of hearing of this appeal in near future, without
expressing any opinion on merits of the case, the application is allowed
and the remaining jail sentence of the appellant is suspended.
7.1 It is directed that subject to depositing the fine amount, if already
not deposited, appellant shall be released on bail on furnishing personal
bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) along
with separate solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of
Trial Court, for her appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly
on 3/10/2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry
in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.
7.2 I.A.is allowed.
7.3 C.C. as per rules.
(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH)
JUDGE
Arun*
ARUN KUMAR MISHRA
2023.08.29 19:07:56 +05'30'
