Mahendra Singh Dehariya vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 17998 MP

                                 - : 1 :-
                                                      CRA No. 12917/2023



HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH : BENCH AT INDORE
   (SINGLE BENCH : HON. Mr. JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA)

                        CRA No. 12917 of 2023
 (MAHENDRA SINGH DEHARIYA V/s. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
            THROUH SPE, LOKAYUKTA, UJJAIN)
Date: 31.10.2023 :
      Shri S.K. Vyas, learned Senior Advocate with Shri Mohan
Sharma, Advocate for the appellant.
      Shri Vibhav Jain, learned counsel for the respondent/SPE
Lokayukta, Ujjain.
1.    Heard on I.A. No.15457/2023, which is first application under
Section 389(1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 for
suspension of jail sentence and grant of bail filed on behalf of
appellant.
2.    This is an appeal filed against the judgment dated 30.9.2023
passed by the Special Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988),
Ratlam in Special Case No. LOK/01/2019 whereby the appellant has
been convicted u/s. 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention
of Corruption Act, 1988 ("P.C. Act" for short) and sentenced to
undergo 4 years RI and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/- with default
stipulation.
3.    Facts

of the case, in short, are as under :

The appellant was posted as Branch Manager, Union Bank of India, Branch Namli, District Ratlam during 16.2.2018 to 17.2.2018. The complainant - Himmat Singh (P.W.3) submitted a written complaint in the office of Incharge Superintendent Vedant Sharma that his father Roopsingh and his uncles viz. Balwantsingh and Fulsingh

- : 2 :-

CRA No. 12917/2023

have a joint KCC Account in Union Bank of India, Branch Namli, District Ratlam. They all are illiterate, therefore, he is making a complaint on their behalf. His father Roopsingh applied under "Vidyasagar" Scheme to get a loan of Rs.4,25,000/- to purchase cattle. Along with the subsidy a loan of Rs.4,25,000/- was sanctioned and the same amount was credited in their account but the Branch Manager Mahendra Singh Dehariya i.e. the present appellant, is demanding Rs.25,000/- for withdrawal of the amount. The said complaint was handed over to Basant Shrivastava (P.W.9). The complainant was given a voice recorder to record the conversation with the Branch Manager in respect of the demand. The complainant met with the Branch Manager on 16.2.2018 and had a conversation in respect of demand of bribe. According to the complainant, the appellant told him to come tomorrow along with Rs.25,000/-. The recorded conversation was handed over to the Investigating Officer who prepared the transcript and called 2-3 Panch witnesses and directed the complainant to make arrangement of currency notes of Rs.25,000/-. The complainant arranged the currency notes of Rs.25,000/- and handed over to the Investigating Officer who applied the phenolphthalein powder for the purposes of trap. On 17.2.2018, the members of the trap team along with the complainant reached Namli and parked the vehicle away from the parking of the Union Bank of India at 12.15 pm. The complainant Himmat Singh entered into the Bank and thereafter came out with another person and gave pre-decided signal to the members of the trap team. Constables Sandeep and Prakash reached in front of the Bank and caught hold the said person who disclosed his name as Dilip Sharma @ Joshi, a retired employee of

- : 3 :-

CRA No. 12917/2023

Union Bank of India. Thereafter, they all entered into the chamber of the Branch Manager, where the present appellant was sitting and he disclosed his name. At the time of handing over of the tainted money the conversation was recorded. According to the complainant, on the instructions of the present appellant he handed over the tainted money to Dilip Sharma. The FIR was registered against the present appellant and Dilip Sharma.

3.1 After completing the investigation charge-sheet was filed and the charges u/s. 7, 13(1)(d), 13(2) of the P.C. Act and u/s. 120B of the IPC were framed. The appellant and another accused denied the charges. The prosecution examined 10 witnesses and got exhibited 66 documents. In defence the appellant did not examine any witness and pleaded innocence and false implication. The appellant recorded his statement u/s. 313 of the Cr.P.C. and stated that he only directed the complainant to come with margin money before withdrawal of the amount and he never demanded the bribe. The complainant prepared forged bill of purchase of buffalo and wanted to utilise the money for construction of the house. He rejected the loan of Rs.8,40,000/-, therefore, he was annoyed and implicated him in this false case. 3.2 After evaluating the evidence came on record, learned Special Judge vide judgment dated 30.9.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated first. Learned Special Judge has acquitted Dilip Sharma from all the charges framed against him on the ground that he only accepted the bribe money on the instructions of present appellant. Hence, the present appeal before this Court along with an application for suspension of jail sentence.

4. Shri S.K. Vyas, learned senior counsel appearing for the

- : 4 :-

CRA No. 12917/2023

appellant, submits that the complainant vide Exh. P/14 applied for loan of Rs.8,40,000/- for purchase of 10 buffalo. Since the complainant did not submit any valid receipt for purchase of buffalo, therefore, loan of Rs.4,25,000/- was sanctioned by the appellant vide Exh. P/19. The Veterinary Department has also sanctioned the loan of Rs.4,25,000/- vide letter dated 11.1.2018. The complainant and his father were required to deposit margin money of Rs.60,000/- for loan of Rs.8,40,000/-, but they were not willing to deposit the margin money and wanted to use the amount for construction of their house. The appellant in his conversation has clearly directed the complainant to bring the margin money and he will prepare the Demand Draft and in the conversation the complainant has specifically admitted that he wanted to use the money for construction of their house. In the conversation, there is no specific demand of money in respect of bribe, therefore, the present appellant has been falsely implicated as he was not willing to sanction the loan as demanded by the complainant and his father. They wanted the loan in the name of purchase of buffalo but for construction of their house.

It is further submitted by the learned senior counsel for the appellant that neither the demand nor the acceptance has been proved. It is submitted that once the co-accused who said to have accepted the bribe money has been acquitted and the present appellant has been acquitted from the charge u/s. 120B of the IPC, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable. Admittedly, there is no recovery of tainted money from the present appellant.

5. On the other hand, Shri Vaibhav Jain, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/SPE Lokayukta, Ujjain opposes the prayer by

- : 5 :-

CRA No. 12917/2023

submitting that on an instruction given by the present appellant the co- accused Dilip Sharma though discharged, had accepted the money. The trap was successful. Since Dilip Sharma was not athorised or competent to do the work of the complainant, therefore, he has been acquitted, but the appellant was the competent authority to sanction the loan.

6. I have perused the conversation between the complainant and the appellant. Prima facie, there is no specific demand of bribe. The conversation was in respect of bringing money for depositing the margin amount. Even at the time of handing over of the money there was discussion about preparation of Demand Draft. It is not the case of the prosecution that the appellant accepted the bribe amount and the amount was recovered from the possession of Dilip Sharma who was outside the Bank. It has also come from the record that the complainant wanted a loan in the name of purchase of buffalo under the scheme for construction of his house, but the appellant was not interested in sanctioning the entire loan amount, therefore, the complainant was annoyed. In view of the above, I.A. No.15457/2023 is allowed and it stands closed.

7. The execution of remaining part of the jail sentence of appellant

- Mahendra Singh Dehariya is hereby suspended and it is ordered that he be released on bail upon his furnishing personal bond in the sum of Rs.50,000/- (Rupees Fifty Thousand Only) with one solvent surety in the like amount to the satisfaction of the trial Court and subject to depositing the fine amount, if not already deposited, with a further direction to appear and mark his presence before the Registry of this Court on 20.12.2023 and also on such other dates as may be

- : 6 :-

CRA No. 12917/2023

fixed by the Registry of this Court in this regard during pendency of the appeal.

List the appeal for final hearing in due course. C.C. as per rules.

( VIVEK RUSIA ) JUDGE Alok/-

Digitally signed by ALOK GARGAV Date: 2023.11.01 18:23:49 +05'30'