K. K. Prajapati (Krashna Kumar ... vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 9682 MP

                                                                   1

                                 IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                         AT GWALIOR
                                                      CRA No. 5165 of 2022
                                              (K.K. PRAJAPATI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)

                           Dated : 27-06-2023
                                 Shri Sanjay Gupta - Advocate for appellant.
                                 Shri Ajay Chaturvedi - Special Prosecutor for respondent -

Lokayukt.

Heard on I.A.No.2215/2023, which is first application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

The Trial Court has convicted the appellant under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentenced to undergo two years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- and four years' RI with fine of Rs.2,000/- with default stipulation, vide judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.05.2022 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act), Datia in SC LOK No.06/2017.

Prosecution case, in brief, is that the father of complainant Ram Pal Singh had two agricultural fields in village Kumhedi, Tahsil and District Datia from where the tower of 33 KV Line was passing through, of which he had received compensation but had not received the compensation in lieu of the damage caused to the crops standing on the field due to installation of said tower. It was further the case of the complainant that for ascertainment of such damage, the report of the Patwari remains significant and when the complainant moved for this purpose, the Patwari of the concerned Halka- Shri K.K. Prajapati, asked him for bribe of Rs.5,000/-. Complainant made a written complaint on 22.09.2016 to the Superintendent of Police, Special Police

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 27-06-2023 06:20:47

Establishment, Gwalior who marked the same to the Inspector Narendra Tripathi for taking appropriate steps, who gave a voice recorder to the complainant to record the conversation of the appellant with regard to the demand of bribe money. Complainant along with shadow witness Dheeraj Nayak recorded the appellant's voice with regard to demand of illegal gratification and thereafter on 24.09.2016 submitted the voice recording along with the written complaint dated 22.09.2016. After preparation of transcript and Panchnama of the conversation of the appellant, FIR was lodged against him. A trap was organized and appellant was caught red handed accepting the tainted currency notes amounting to Rs.10,000/-.

Learned counsel for the appellant referring to the statement of the complainant Rampal (PW-1) submits that complainant in his statement recorded during trial specifically admitted that he had received the compensation of the damaged crops. Complainant Rampal (PW-1) did not support the story of prosecution and ultimately he was declared hostile. It is further submitted by him that the tainted currency notes were seized from the wooden bed (Takhat) and not from the hands of the appellant. Other agriculturists also have not stated about the demand made by the appellant. He further referred the statement of Executive Engineer M.P.E.B. Shri Kailash Kumar (PW-4) in which he also stated in para 8 of his cross examination that the department only gives compensation amount for damaged crops for installation of tower. It is submitted that the entire prosecution case is doubtful, even then the appellant has been convicted for the offences as mentioned above. Appellant is in custody since 28.05.2022 and he has suffered one year and one month's incarceration. There is no likelihood of hearing of this

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 27-06-2023 06:20:47

appeal in near future. In view of aforesaid, learned counsel for the appellant prays for suspension of remaining jail sentence and grant of bail to the appellant.

Learned counsel for the respondent/State has opposed the prayer and submits that from the complaint of the complainant and transcript, name of voice recording demand made by the appellant will be proved. Tainted currency notes were seized from the possession of the appellant and his hands were turned pink in Sodium Carbonate solution. He has not given any plausible explanation about acceptance of the tainted currency notes. Compensation of damaged crops to the complainant and other agriculturists are yet to be paid. Prosecution case is proved beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial court has not committed any error in holding the appellant guilty for the offences punishable under Section 7 and Section 13(1)(d) r/w 13(2)of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

Heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the recorded.

Upon perusal of the record this fact is not disputed that due to installation of the tower, compensation for damaged crops was yet to be assessed and paid to the complainant and other agriculturists. This fact is also not disputed that the appellant being an authorized person is required to submit the report with regard to the damaged crops.

In view of the above and considering the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant that appellant was not directed or authorized to submit its report so also considering the overall evidence produced on record and facts and circumstances of the case, period of custody suffered by the appellant and the fact that there is no likelihood

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 27-06-2023 06:20:47

of early hearing of this appeal, 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, 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 his appearance before the Registry of this Court firstly on 23.08.2023, and on such other dates, as may be fixed by the Registry in this regard, till final disposal of this appeal.

I.A. No. 2215/2023 is allowed.

C.C. as per rules.

(SATYENDRA KUMAR SINGH) JUDGE Abhi

Signature Not Verified Signed by: ABHISHEK CHATURVEDI Signing time: 27-06-2023 06:20:47