Madhya Pradesh High Court
Smt. Angoorbala Bhriya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 16 March, 2023
Author: Vivek Rusia
1
IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
AT INDORE
CRA No. 3121 of 2023
(SMT. ANGOORBALA BHRIYA Vs THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH)
Dated : 16-03-2023
Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant.
Shri Raghvendra Singh Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the
Respondent.
Heard on I.A. No.3056/2023, which is first application under Section 389
of Cr.P.C. filed by the sole appellant for suspension of remaining jail sentence
and grant of bail.
T he appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under
Section 7 and Section 13(1) (d) R/w Section 13(2) of P.C. Act and sentenced
to undergo 3 years R.I. and 4 years R.I. with fine of Rs.500/- and Rs.1500/-
with default stipulation vide judgment dated 20.02.2023 passed by Special
Judge P.C. Act District Dhar in SC-LOK/01/2019.
A s per prosecution story, the complainant Geetabai (PW-3) made
complainant to the SP, Special Police Establishment that this appellant being
Project Officer demanded bribe of Rs.20,000/- for reinstating her back into
service. The complainant was terminated from service by this appellant in the
month of June,2017. Thereafter, complainant on 03.10.2017 made
representation for taking back her into service for which appellant demanded of
Rs.20,000/- for issuing appointment order. The complainant shown her inability
to pay the amount of Rs.20,000/- and agreed to pay Rs.10,000/-, thus appellant
issued appointment order. Thereafter, appellant started pressurizing the
complainant to give Rs.10,000/- otherwise she would again terminated her into
service. The complainant gave Rs.1000/- and appellant directed to make
arrangement for Rs.9,000/-. The complaint Ex.P/3 was given to Superintendent
o f Police and after verifying the same, it was handed over to Sunil Kumar
Uikey, the then Inspector for further enquiry. The complainant was given digital
voice recorder with memory card to record the conversation. The complainant
recorded the conversation with appellant held on 04.12.2017 and handed over
to Sunil Kumar Uikey, the then Inspector. After verification of the demand,
Dehati Nalishi was registered on 05.12.2017. The complainant was directed to
arrange currency note. The complainant has arranged Rs.5000/- and gave it to
the Sunil Kumar Uikey, the then Inspector to apply the chemical into the
currency notes for the purpose of trap.
T h e entire trap team alongwith complainant in government vehicle
reached to the office of Project Officer. The complainant handed over
Rs.5,000/- to appellant and gave signal to the trap team. The trap team
immediately entered into office and caught hold both hands of the appellant and
found tainted amount of Rs.5,000/- on the table of the appellant. Hands of the
appellant washed which turned into pink. Currency notes were verified, hence,
acceptance was found to be established. Accordingly an FIR was registered for
the above stated offence. After completion of investigation and obtaining
sanction, charge-sheet was filed.
T h e appellant denied the charges, the prosecution has examined 10
witnesses and exhibited 65 documentary evidence. In defence, the appellant two
witnesses. After evaluating the evidence came on record, the learned Special
Judge has disbelieved the conversation recorded in the digital recorder as well
its transcript, however held that acceptance of bribe has been proved by the
prosecution, thus convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above.
S hri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the
appellant had no occasion to demand the bribe from the complainant as
appointment order had already been issued prior to the date of complaint. The
demand has not been proved as learned Special Judge has discarded the
electronic evidence as well as its transcript. Since demand has not been
established, therefore merely recovery of tainted amount cannot based for
conviction on the basis of presumption. It is further submitted that in complaint
no date and time has been mentioned for pressuring the complainant for
demand of Rs.10,000/- as bribe after issuance of joining letter. Since
complainant has been terminated from service therefore she has lodged
complaint to be falsely implicated the appellant. The appellant is a lady aged
about more than 60 years. This is appeal of 2023 and there no possibility of
early hearing of this appeal. In support of his contention, learned counsel for the
appellant has placed reliance over the judgment passed by Apex Court in cases
o f B.Jayaraj vs State Of A.P reported in (2014) 13 SCC 55
P.Satyanarayana Murthy vs Dist.Insp.Of Police & Anr reported in (2015)
10 SCC 152 V.Sejappa vs State By Police Insp.Lokayukta reported in
(2016) 12 SCC 150.
S hri Raghuvanshi, learned counsel for the respondent opposes the
aforesaid prayer made by the appellant by submitting that although the digital
evidence has not been proved but trap was successful. The appellant has failed
to give any justification as to why the complainant gave Rs.10,000/- therefore, it
was money other than legal remuneration payable to the appellant. The
complainant has fully supported the case of prosecution, thus at this stage,
remaining sentence of the appellant is not liable to be suspended.
I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record
available alongwith Criminal Appeal.
Prima facie, the demand was found proved only relying oral testimony
of the complainant in the Court and written complainant given by her as well as
in deposition before the Court. The complainant has not given any date or time
in respect of demand of Rs.1,000/- and date on which the appellant pressurized
the complainant for remaining Rs.9,000/-, therefore, prima facie there is no
corroboration of statement of PW-3 complainant in support of demand. So far
as acceptance is concerned, at the time of handing over the money, there is no
recording. The complainant has not fully supported the case of prosecution and
she was declared hostile. The appellant has also raised other grounds which
shall be considered at the time of final hearing. During investigation as well as
trial, the appellant was on bail. There is no allegation during bail, she tried to
influence the witnesses and misused the liberty so granted to her.
Looking to the aforesaid, I am of the of the considered opinion that the
application for suspension of custodial sentence moved on behalf of the
appellant deserved to be allowed.
Accordingly, I.A. No.3056/2023,, is allowed and it is directed that
subject to depositing fine amount and on furnishing personal bond by the
appellant in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousands Only) with one
solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the learned trial Court for
his appearance before the Court, the execution of custodial part of the sentence
shall remain suspended, till the final disposal of this appeal.
The appellant after being enlarged on bail, the appellant shall mark his
presence before concerned trial court on 12/07/2023 and on all such subsequent
dates, which are fixed in this regard by Trial Court concerned.
List for final hearing in due course.
Certified copy, as per rules.
(VIVEK RUSIA)
JUDGE
Praveen
Digitally signed by
PRAVEEN NAYAK
Date: 2023.03.21 17:37:00
+05'30'
