INDRA VIJAY ALOKversusSTATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

                       [2015] 10 S.C.R. 288


A                       INDRA VIJAY ALOK
                                 v.
                  STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH
                (Criminal Appeal No. 1917 of2008)
B                       AUGUST 31, 2015
       [RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.]

       Prevention of Coffuption Act, 1988: ss. 7 and 13(1)(d) rlw
c s. 13(2) - Allegation that appellant-Patwari demanded from
  the complainant bribe for carrying out the mutation in the
  revenue records - Trial Court found the evidence of
  complainant (PW-3) and statements of other prosecution
  witnesses reliable for holding the appellant guilty- Conviction
D by trial court upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held:
  The statement of PW-3 got corroboration by the statement
  of the superior officer of the appellant's own department-As
  such courts below committed no error of law in relying on
  testimony of these witnesses and in convicting the appellant.
E
       Dismissing the appeal, the Court

         Held: 1. The statement of PW-3 (complainant) gets
     corroborated by the statement of PW-4 (Deputy
F Superintendent of Police), as well as by PW-2 Deputy
     Collector who is superior officer of the appellant's own
     department. As such the courts below have committed
   · no error of law in relying on the testimony of above three
     witnesses as trustworthy, against the statement of DW-
G · 6, who appears to have been won over by the defence.
     Merely for the reason that DW-6 has not supported
     prosecution case, the ring of truth in the prosecution
     case is not shaken in the present case, particularly, when
     the statements of remaining witnesses are credible and
H                                288
  INDRA VIJAY ALOt< v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                289


trustworthy. [Para 10] [292-H; 293-A-B]                        A
    2. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the
prosecution. This has no legs for the reason that it has
come on the record that the Investigating Officer had died
when the prosecution evidence was recorded. [Para 11]          B
[293-C]

    3. PW-3 has clearly stated that initial demand of
Rs.1900/- was made to his mother, who paid Rs.900/- to
the appellant, but when he came back to his village, his c
mother told him that further Rs.1000/- was required to
be arranged. PW-3 further told the court that on this, he
himself went to the appellant and requested not to
demand further money, but he (appellant) did not relent.
The trap was laid, and the amount of Rs.1000/-was given D
by him to the appellant and recovered from him
(appellant). Even otherwise, presumption can be drawn
under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988, regarding the motive of receiving the gratification
unless it is rebutted. In the present case, the presumption E
does not stand rebutted. [Para 12] [293-E-H; 294-A]

    CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal
No. 1917 of2008.
    From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2007 of the F
High Court of Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior
                                           .
Bench Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of2000 .
    Rajendra Sahu, Hema Sahu, C. L. Sahu for the Appellant.
                                                               G
   Shreya Bhatnagar, Bansuri Swaraj, C. D. Singh for the
Respondent.
    The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
    PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against H
290        SUPREME COURT REPORTS                (2015] 10 S.C.R..


A  judgment and order dated 31.8.2007, passed by the High Court
   of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Gwalior Bench), whereby said
   Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2000, and
   affirmed conviction and sentence recorded against accused
   Indra Vijay Alok under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with
 B Section 13(2) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 by the
    Special Judge, Datiya, in Special Case No. 1 of 1992.

          2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and
      perused the papers on record.
 c
         3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a piece of land in
   Badoni Khurd was in the name of one Sadri, younger brother·
   of PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant). Appellant Indra Vijay Alok
   was the Patwari of Halka area during the relevant period, i.e.
 D in 1987. After death of Sadri, complainant and his mother
   Bhagobai sought mutation of their names in the revenue record.
   When Bhagobai, mother of the complainant, met the appellant
   in this connection, he demanded Rs. 1900/- out of which she
   paid Rs. 900/-. When Complainant (PW-3) came to his village,
 E his mother told him about the demand made by the appellant.
   On this, on 18.05.1987 he (PW-3) himself met the appellant,
   who clearly told him that unless further Rs.1000/- is paid to
   him, the mutation would not be done. This compelled PW-3
   Ram Singh (complainant) to make a complaint (Ext.P-3) on
 F 17.6.1987 to Superintendent of Police (Vigilance), Gwalior. A
   trap was laid, headed by PW-4 B.L. Vashist (Deputy
   ~uperintendent of Police) in which PW-2 Ashok Bhargava
   (Deputy Collector) and one Sahir (DW-6) were panch
   witnesses. Before trap, ten currency notes of Rs.100/- of the
 G complainant were. applied phenolphthalein powder, and a
   memorandum (Ext.P-4) was prepared. As per the plan, PW-3
   Ram Singh and panch witness Sahirwere followed by PW-2
   Ashok Bhargav, Deputy Collector, PW-4 B.L. Vashist, Deputy
 H Superintendent of Police, and PW-6 Inspector Raghuraj
   Shastri. When the team reached the house of the appellant in
   INDRA VIJAY ALOK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 291
                [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

Khidki, Distt. Datiya, and the appellant accepted the amount A
of Rs.1000/-, a signal was given to the police party, which
immediately caught the appellant and his hands were washed
in water in a bucket, which turned red. Thereafter, the raiding
party asked the appellant to take out Rs.1000/- accepted by
him from PW-3 Ram Singh. The currency notes recovered B
tallied with the memorandum (Ext.P-4) and fresh panchnama
was prepared. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested and
crime was registered. After investigation, the Investigating
Officer R.S. Parihar (since died) filed the charge sheet against
the appellant Indra Vijay Alok for his trial in respect of offences C
punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with Section
13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

    4. The trial court, after hearing the parties, appears to have
framed charge against the accused to which the accused D
pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.

    5. On this, prosecution got examined PW-1 R . R ·. -
Vishwa Deva (clerk in Collector's office), PW-2Ashok Bhargav
(Deputy Collector), PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant), PW-4 B.L. E
Vashisth (Deputy Superintendent of Police), PW-5 S.R. Tiwari
(Assistant Grade I), and PW-6 Raghuraj Shastri (Inspector).

      6. Prosecution evidence was put to the accused Indra Vijay
Alok, in reply to which he only admitted that he was Patwari of F
the Halka at the relevant period, and there was land in the
village recorded in the name of Badri, but as to the rest of the
evidence he denied the same as incorrect.

   7. In defence, the appellant got examined DW-1 Baijnath, G
DW-2 Ram Swaroop, DW-3 Hardas, DW-4 Swami Sharan
Saxena, DW-5 Sita Ram Gupta, and DW-6 Sahir.

    8. The trial court, after hearing the parties, found that the
evidence of PW-3 Ram Singh and statement given by PW-2
Ashok Bhargav (Deputy Collector) read with the statements           H
292         SUPREME COURT REPORTS              . [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A of other prosecution witnesses, and the documents proved on
  record, leave no room of doubt that the accused demanded
  Rs.1000/- from PW-3 Ram Singh for getting entered his name
  and that of his mLJther in place of Sadri in the revenue record,
  and Rs.1000/- was given to and accepted by the accused when
B the trap was laid, and the same was recovered from the pocket
  of his pant. Thereafter, the trial court heard the accused on
  sentence, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for a
  period of one year and directed to pay fine of Rs.1000/- under
  Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988. The
C accused was further convicted under Section 13(1)(d) read
  with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced to rigorous
  imprisonment for a period of two years and directed to pay
  fine of Rs.1000/-. For each of the defaults in payment of fine,
D the convict was directed to undergo further three IT)Onths
  rigorous imprisonment.

           9. Aggrieved by said judgment and order dated
      10.2.2000, passed by Special Judge, Datiya in Special Case
      No. 1 of 1992, the convict Indra Vijay Alok preferred appeal
 E    before the High Court which was registered as Criminal Appeal
      No. 102 of 2000. The High Court, after hearing the parities,
      re-appreciatecj the evidence and concurred with the conviction
      and sentence recorded by the trial court. Hence this appeal
 F    through special leave.

         10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued before us
   that the panch witness Sahir has not supported the prosecution
   case, as such the courts below have erred in law in believing
   the prosecution story. Having gone through the papers on
 G record, we do not find substance in the argument. The
   statement of PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant) gets
   corroborated by the statement of PW-4 B.L. Vashist (Deputy
   Superintendent of Police), as well as by PW-2Ashok Bhargav,
 H Deputy Collector who is superior officer of the appellant's own
   department. As such we find that the courts below have
   INDRA VIJAY ALOK v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH                         293
                [PRAFULLAC. PANT, J.]

committed no error of law in relying on the testimony of above          A
three witnesses as trustworthy, against the statement of DW-6
Sahir, who appears to have been won over by the defence.
We are of the opinion that merely for the reason that DW-6
Sahir has not supported prosecution case, the ring of truth in
the prosecution case is not shaken in the present case,                 B
particularly, when the statements of remaining witnesses are
credible and trustworthy.

     11. It is also pointed out by learned counsel for the appellant
that the Investigating Officer R.S. Parihar was not examined            C
by the prosecution. This, in our opinion, has no legs for the
reason that it has come on the record that the Investigating
Officer RS. Parihar had died when the prosecution evidence
was recorded.
                                                                        D
      12. Lastly, it is submitted on behalf of the appellant that
Bhagobai, mother of the complainant, from whom demand was
allegedly made, was not examined, as such it cannot be said
that the amount so recovered from the appellant has anything
to do with the mutation; We have carefully gone through the E
deposition of PW-3 Ram Singh in the original record, and found
that he has clearly stated that initial demand of Rs.1900/- was
made to his mother, who paid Rs.900/- to the appellant, but
when he came back to his village, his mother told him that
further Rs.1000/- was required to be arranged. PW-3 Ram F
Singh further told the court that on this, he himself went to the
appellant and requested not to demand further money, but he
(appellant) did not relent. In the circumstances, according to
PW-3, he went to Lokayukta Office and made a complaint, but
the Office of Lokayukta advised him to reach to Rest House, G
Datiya. On this, he went to the Rest House, Datiya and made
a complaint to the Vigilance Department and thereafter trap
was laid, and the amount of Rs.1000/-was given by him to the
appellant and recovered from him (appellant). Even otherwise, H
presumption can be drawn under Section 20 of the Prevention
294          SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2015] 10 S.C.R.


A of Corruption Act, 1988, regarding the motive of receiving the
  gratification unless it is rebutted. In the present case, in our
  opinion, the presumption does not stand rebutted.

        13. Having considered submissions of learned counsel
B for the appellant and learned counsel for the State, and after
  going through the papers on record, we do not find any illegality
  in appreciation of evidence by the courts below. We further
  agree with the sentence recorded against the appellant by the
  trial court and affirmed by the High Court against the appellant.
C Sanction of prosecution is also proved on the record by PW-5
  S. R. Tiwari. The request of learned counsel for the appellant
  to reduce the period of sentence to the period already
  undergone too cannot be accepted, in the facts and
  circumstances of the present case.
 D
         14. For the· reasons, as discussed above, we are not
   inclined to interfere with the impugned order passed by the
   High Court. Accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. The bail
   granted to the appellant Indra Vijay Alok is cancelled. The trial
 E court shall take him into custody to serve out the remaining
   part of the sentence.

      Devika Gujral                                 Appeal dismissed.