{"id":209917,"date":"2011-09-21T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-09-20T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011"},"modified":"2019-04-13T18:43:25","modified_gmt":"2019-04-13T13:13:25","slug":"charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","title":{"rendered":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011<\/div>\n
                                                 (1)                             Cr.A.No.1841\/1999\n\n\n       HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR\n                                                                                         (AFR)\n\nDivision Bench:                 Hon'ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena\n                                Hon'ble Justice Shri M.A.Siddiqui\n\n\n                     CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1841\/1999\n\n\n                Charanlal son of Nathulal Durve aged\n                39 years, resident of village Matiya Doh,\n                Police Station Lavadhodhari\n                District Chhindwara (M.P.)\n\n                                                                    .......Appellant\n                                 -Versus-\n                State of Madhya Pradesh\n                through Police Station Mohkhed,\n                District Chhindwara (M.P.)\n\n                                                                   .......Respondent\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n     For the Appellant:                  Shri Vivek Shukla, Advocate.\n     For the State:                      Shri S.K.Rai, Government Advocate.\n---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n\nDate of hearing:                          13\/09\/2011\nDate of Judgment:                         21\/09\/2011\n\n                                         **********\n\n                                    JUDGMENT\n<\/pre>\n
Per: Rakesh Saksena,J.\n<\/p>\n
                Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment<\/p>\n
dated 07.07.1999 passed by Special Judge (Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act), Chhindwara in Special Case No.4\/92 convicting<\/p>\n
the appellant under sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the<\/p>\n
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to<\/p>\n
rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500\/- on each<\/p>\n
count, respectively. Sentences of imprisonment on both counts<\/p>\n
concurrent.\n<\/p>\n
2.              The accusation against the appellant is that on<\/p>\n
26.7.1990, he as a public servant being Patwari of village
\n                                   (2)                   Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
Khunajhirkhurd, demanded and accepted Rs.500\/- by way of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification from complainant Sabba for providing him<\/p>\n
Pavti of his agricultural land.\n<\/p>\n
3.         According    to   prosecution,    M.V.Bhandare,      S.D.O.<\/p>\n
Police, Chhindwara on 26.7.1990 received an application from<\/p>\n
Joint Collector\/Vigilance Officer, Chhindwara namely Manish<\/p>\n
Shrivastava wherein complainant Sabba had made a written<\/p>\n
complaint to Collector, Chhindwara that Patwari Charanlal<\/p>\n
Dhurve was demanding Rs.1000\/- for making mutation of his land<\/p>\n
and giving Pavti in respect to it. According to complainant, about<\/p>\n
a year back, he had purchased four acres and 26 decimal<\/p>\n
agricultural land through registered sale deed from Manak Gabli.<\/p>\n
On the basis of the said registry when he approached to Patwari<\/p>\n
for obtaining Pavti, he demanded Rs.1000\/-. He agreed for the<\/p>\n
payment of said money in instalments of Rs.500\/-. It was agreed<\/p>\n
that first instalment of Rs.500\/- would be paid on 26.7.1990 at his<\/p>\n
residence. Since he wanted Patwari to be caught taking bribe, he<\/p>\n
submitted the said application to Collector which was marked to<\/p>\n
Joint Collector Manish Shrivastava. On the said complaint,<\/p>\n
Manish Shrivastava, R.S.Thakur, Deputy Collector, M.S. Verma,<\/p>\n
SDO (P), Chhindwara, Arvind Kumar Shukla and Sopchand<\/p>\n
planned a trap. They obtained five currency notes of Rs.100\/-<\/p>\n
each   from    the   complainant,       M.V.Bhandare   and     Manish<\/p>\n
Shrivastava made their initials on the notes and prepared a<\/p>\n
panchnama recording the numbers of the aforesaid notes. They<\/p>\n
handed over these notes to complainant and asked him to go with<\/p>\n
Sopchand to the house of accused and deliver the same to him.<\/p>\n
He was also instructed to give a signal when the said money was
\n                                 (3)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
accepted by the accused. Complainant and Sopchand went at the<\/p>\n
house of accused and other members of the trap party followed<\/p>\n
them. Complainant went in the house of accused and after two<\/p>\n
minutes came out and gave prefixed signal to the trap party.<\/p>\n
Immediately the members of the trap party went in the house of<\/p>\n
accused and caught him. Accused informed them that the money<\/p>\n
received by him was kept by him in his polythene bag on the<\/p>\n
other side of partition of the room. Aforesaid currency notes of<\/p>\n
Rs.500\/- were recovered from the polythene bag and immediately<\/p>\n
memorandum Ex.P\/9 and Ex.P\/10 were prepared. Sanshodhan<\/p>\n
Panji and sale deed were also seized. Numbers of currency notes<\/p>\n
tallied with the numbers recorded in memorandum.<\/p>\n
4.        After the trap, report Ex.P\/7 was recorded by SDO(P)<\/p>\n
M.V.Bhandare. The said report was then sent to police station<\/p>\n
Mohkhed where Crime No.151\/1990 under section 3(1&2) was<\/p>\n
registered. After investigation, sanction for prosecution    Ex.P\/8<\/p>\n
was obtained and the case was put up for trial in the Court of<\/p>\n
Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
5.        On charges being framed, accused abjured his guilt<\/p>\n
and pleaded false implication. According to him, he did not<\/p>\n
accept any money as bribe. He also examined Teekaram (DW-1)<\/p>\n
in his defence. As per the statement of accused under section 313<\/p>\n
Cr.P.C., complainant concocted the story of demand of bribe on<\/p>\n
the move of Munna @ Arvind Shukla who was inimical to him.<\/p>\n
The reason for delay in making Pavti was that Teekaram had<\/p>\n
made objection for the mutation of the name of complainant.<\/p>\n
Since the competent authority did not allow the amendment of<\/p>\n
the name, the name of complainant’s father was not mutated in
\n                                     (4)                         Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
the revenue record and no Rin Pustika could be prepared. He<\/p>\n
examined Teekaram (DW-1) in his defence.\n<\/p>\n
6.          Prosecution       examined          complainant      Sabba         @<\/p>\n
Sobharam (PW-1), Sopchand (PW-2), jeweller Pradhuyuman<\/p>\n
Kumar (PW-3), patwari G.R.Deshmukh (PW-4), head constable<\/p>\n
Sukhram (PW-5), Girvar Singh (PW-6), head constable Shankerlal<\/p>\n
(PW-7), S.D.O Prabhat Kumar Shrivastava (PW-8), S.D.O(P)<\/p>\n
M.S.Verma (PW-9), Deputy Collector Manish Shrivastava (PW-10)<\/p>\n
and Land Acquisition Officer Officer R.S.Thakur (PW-11) to prove<\/p>\n
its case. Learned Special Judge relying on the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
by the prosecution held the appellant guilty, convicted and<\/p>\n
sentenced him as mentioned above.\n<\/p>\n
7.          Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that<\/p>\n
appellant   was    falsely    implicated        by   the    complainant        in<\/p>\n
connivance with Arvind Shukla who was inimical towards him.<\/p>\n
From beginning to end, it was Arvind Shukla who advised and<\/p>\n
supported    the   complainant.    Evidence          of    complainant      was<\/p>\n
discrepant and contradictory to other witnesses. Evidence of<\/p>\n
other prosecution witnesses namely S.D.O.(P) M.S.Verma (PW-9),<\/p>\n
Deputy Collector Manish Shrivastava (PW-10) and R.S.Thakur<\/p>\n
(PW-11) was also unreliable and they did not take any precaution<\/p>\n
to rule out the possibility of planting of the money in the room of<\/p>\n
accused. Before initiating the trap, none of the witnesses gave his<\/p>\n
personal search. Main investigating officer M.V.Bhandare was<\/p>\n
not   examined     in   the   Court.      The    learned     Special     Judge<\/p>\n
misappreciated the evidence on record and committed error in<\/p>\n
holding the appellant guilty of the charges. On the other hand,<\/p>\n
learned counsel for the State submitted that the evidence of
\n                                  (5)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
prosecution witnesses was trustworthy and reliable. Finding of<\/p>\n
conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court was<\/p>\n
justified and no interference was called for in the impugned<\/p>\n
judgment of conviction.\n<\/p>\n
8.        We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and<\/p>\n
perused the evidence and material on record.\n<\/p>\n
9.        Complainant Sabba (PW-1) deposed that          his father<\/p>\n
Godelal had purchased the land from Manak. He wanted the<\/p>\n
name of his father entered in the revenue record, therefore, he<\/p>\n
handed over the sale deed to accused\/Patwari and asked him to<\/p>\n
record the name of his father by next day. After 2-4 days, when<\/p>\n
he   contacted   accused,   he   demanded   Rs.1000\/-.   He      then<\/p>\n
contacted one Arvind Shukla. Arvind Shukla took him to some<\/p>\n
officers and made him to put thumb impressions on some papers.<\/p>\n
He asked him to give Rs.500\/- for handing over to accused, so he<\/p>\n
managed the said money by pledging his silver ornaments. Three<\/p>\n
officers made their initials on the currency notes and asked him<\/p>\n
to come next day. In the next     morning, he along with Arvind<\/p>\n
Shukla and other officers went to village Khunajhir. Officers gave<\/p>\n
him the same currency notes of Rs.500\/- and asked him to<\/p>\n
handover the said notes to accused and give signal to them. He<\/p>\n
along with Sopchand (PW-2) then went to the house of accused<\/p>\n
and after giving him aforesaid currency notes gave signal to the<\/p>\n
members of the trap party. Officers reached at the house of<\/p>\n
accused and searched him. The money was not found on the<\/p>\n
person of accused, instead the money was found kept in a bag<\/p>\n
hanging inside the room. The notes were taken out from the bag<\/p>\n
and were seized. All the persons along with accused were carried
\n                                 (6)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
to Chhindwara. This witness clearly stated that when the money<\/p>\n
was not found in the clothes of accused, the house of accused<\/p>\n
was searched. As soon as officers entered the house of<\/p>\n
accused,he had come out of the house, therefore, he did not<\/p>\n
know what transpired inside the house of accused. The evidence<\/p>\n
of this witness appears discrepant. He admitted that Arvind<\/p>\n
Shukla had taken him to the office of Collector where he was<\/p>\n
asked to put his thumb impression on papers. After the trap when<\/p>\n
he reached back to Chhindwara again his thumb impressions<\/p>\n
were taken on number of papers. According to him, he did not<\/p>\n
remember whether there had been any Likha-Padhi at the house<\/p>\n
of accused, but when he returned to Chhindwara his thumb<\/p>\n
impressions were obtained.\n<\/p>\n
10.       Complainant (PW-1) deposed that the sale deed in<\/p>\n
favour of his father was executed in the year 1986. After elapse<\/p>\n
of about 3 years, gave sale deed to accused for entering the name<\/p>\n
of his father. He admitted that he never made any complaint<\/p>\n
about the demand made by the accused to any Revenue Inspector<\/p>\n
or Tehsildar instead he contacted Arvind Shukla. He admitted<\/p>\n
that Teekaram (DW-1) told that the land which was purchased by<\/p>\n
his father belonged to his share. He did not know whether<\/p>\n
Teekaram made any objection about the entry of their names in<\/p>\n
the record. He, however, admitted that because of the said sale<\/p>\n
deed Teekaram stopped them from passing through his field.<\/p>\n
11.       Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that the<\/p>\n
whole episode of trap was managed by Arvind Shukla, but<\/p>\n
deliberately he was not examined as a witness in the Court. In<\/p>\n
para 17 of his deposition, complainant (PW-1) stated that when
\n                                 (7)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
he along with Arvind Shukla went to the office of Collector, he<\/p>\n
did not give any application but his thumb impressions were<\/p>\n
obtained on several papers. He put his thumb impression on<\/p>\n
being asked by the officer who talked to Arvind Shukla. He did<\/p>\n
not know what was written on those papers. He kept on sitting<\/p>\n
outside the office and Arvind Shukla talked to officer inside the<\/p>\n
room.\n<\/p>\n
12.       According to complainant, for the first time when he<\/p>\n
contacted accused he demanded Rs.1000\/- but later on he<\/p>\n
demanded Rs.2000\/-. In para 22, he stated that he neither gave<\/p>\n
written application in the office of Collector complaining that<\/p>\n
accused demanded Rs.1000\/- from him nor he told that he<\/p>\n
wanted accused to be caught red handed.\n<\/p>\n
13.       As far as the demand of bribe by the accused is<\/p>\n
concerned, complainant (PW-1) is said to have informed about it<\/p>\n
to Arvind Shukla, but Arvind Shukla was not examined in the<\/p>\n
Court. Though Sopchand (PW-2) who was examined by the<\/p>\n
prosecution as a shadow witness, happened to be the friend of<\/p>\n
complainant, but even he did not say that complainant told to him<\/p>\n
about the alleged demand by the accused. Joint Collector Manish<\/p>\n
Shrivastava (PW-10) though stated that complainant told to him<\/p>\n
that accused demanded bribe from him and that he gave an<\/p>\n
application to Collector for the trap of accused, but the<\/p>\n
complainant denied of having given any application to Collector.<\/p>\n
According to him, Arvind Shukla and other officers obtained his<\/p>\n
thumb impressions on papers, but neither anybody inquired from<\/p>\n
him nor he inquired anything from them. No application\/<\/p>\n
complaint allegedly made by the complainant (PW-1) was proved
\n                                     (8)                    Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
in the Court. First Information Report Ex.P\/7 was recorded by<\/p>\n
M.V.Bhandare, SDO(P) Chhindwara, but M.V.Bhandare was not<\/p>\n
examined in the Court. Though it was mentioned in Ex.P\/7 that<\/p>\n
an application marked by Collector Chhindwara was handed over<\/p>\n
to him by Joint Collector Manish Shrivastava, but no such<\/p>\n
document      was   produced   in   the   Court.   Thus,   except       the<\/p>\n
uncorroborated evidence of complainant (PW-1) there appeared<\/p>\n
no other evidence to assure that accused made a demand of bribe<\/p>\n
from him. In view of the fact that everything was managed by<\/p>\n
Arvind Shukla, who was not on good terms with the accused, the<\/p>\n
sole uncorroborated evidence of complainant about the demand<\/p>\n
of bribe by the accused, in our opinion, does not inspire<\/p>\n
confidence.\n<\/p>\n
14.        In respect to the trap proceeding and acceptance of<\/p>\n
bribe money by the accused, it has to be noted that no scientific<\/p>\n
method by using phenolphthalein powder was adopted. Had the<\/p>\n
currency notes, which allegedly were to be delivered to accused<\/p>\n
by way of bribe, been treated by the phenolphthalein powder,<\/p>\n
there could have been further assurance that accused accepted<\/p>\n
the money voluntarily or had conscious possession of bribe<\/p>\n
money. A cursory explanation by SDO(P) M.S.Verma (PW-9) that<\/p>\n
since phenolphthalein powder was not available at that time, it<\/p>\n
was not applied on the notes, cannot be held to be satisfactory or<\/p>\n
reliable. Apex Court in Khilli Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan –<\/p>\n
(1985) 1 SCC 28 observed that “Ordinarily in cases of this type<\/p>\n
the powder treatment is made. There is no material at all on<\/p>\n
record to explain why such a process was not followed in the<\/p>\n
instant case even though detection is alleged to have been
\n                                   (9)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
handled by experienced people of Anti-Corruption Department. It<\/p>\n
has been in vogue for well over three decades now. If such<\/p>\n
powder treatment had been made, the passing of the bribe would<\/p>\n
not have been difficult to be proved. Without powder treatment,<\/p>\n
for the absence of which no explanation has been advanced in<\/p>\n
this case, and in view of an overall assessment of the matter<\/p>\n
which indicates that the story advanced by the prosecution is not<\/p>\n
true and the defence version seems to be more probable, the<\/p>\n
prosecution story becomes liable to be rejected.” In Ganga<\/p>\n
Kumar Srivastava Vs. State of Bihar – (2005) 6 SCC 211,<\/p>\n
Apex Court with approval quoted the observations made by it in<\/p>\n
Raghbir Singh Vs. State of Punjab -(1976) 1 SCC 145 as follows:<\/p>\n
“We may take this opportunity of pointing out that it would be<\/p>\n
desirable if in cases of this kind where a trap is laid for a public<\/p>\n
servant, the marked currency notes, which are used for the<\/p>\n
purpose of trap, are treated with phenolphthalein powder so that<\/p>\n
the handling of such marked currency notes by the public servant<\/p>\n
can be detected by chemical process and the court does not have<\/p>\n
to depend on oral evidence which is sometimes of a dubious<\/p>\n
character for the purpose of deciding the fate of the public<\/p>\n
servant.”\n<\/p>\n
15.         In   these   circumstances,   when   we   examine       the<\/p>\n
evidence on record, we find that complainant (PW-1) along with<\/p>\n
Sopchand went to the house of accused, gave him currency notes<\/p>\n
of Rs.500\/- and gave signal to the trap party. Officers of the trap<\/p>\n
party reached there and searched the clothes of accused, but the<\/p>\n
notes were not found in his clothes. The money was found kept in<\/p>\n
a polythene bag. The notes were taken out of the bag and seized.\n<\/p>\n
                                (10)                  Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
The bag was found hanging inside the room. When officers<\/p>\n
entered the house of accused, PW-1 went out, therefore, he did<\/p>\n
not know what transpired inside the room. He did not remember<\/p>\n
whether there had been any Likha-Padhi at the house of accused,<\/p>\n
but, as stated by him, he was made to put his thumb impressions<\/p>\n
on some papers in police station, Chhindwara. Immediately after<\/p>\n
the recovery of money, he and accused were carried from village<\/p>\n
Khunajhir to Chhindwara. PW-1 stated that at the time when he<\/p>\n
gave money to accused, Girwar (PW-6) was present. When he<\/p>\n
asked accused to take money and to do his work, he took money<\/p>\n
after going behind the partition where the bag was hanging.<\/p>\n
Shadow witness Sopchand did not go inside the room and<\/p>\n
remained standing outside. He admitted that he had good<\/p>\n
relations with accused. He frequently visited his house. Accused<\/p>\n
lived alone, none of his family members lived with him. He also<\/p>\n
disclosed that there had been a quarrel between Teekaram and<\/p>\n
Arvind Shukla. Arvind Shukla wanted that accused should get the<\/p>\n
house of Teekaram demolished but accused did not yield to his<\/p>\n
demand, therefore, Arvind Shukla was annoyed with accused.<\/p>\n
16.       Learned counsel for the appellant, in this background,<\/p>\n
submitted that the possibility that in connivance with Arvind<\/p>\n
Shukla, complainant planted the marked currency notes in the<\/p>\n
house of accused could not be ruled out. He also pointed out from<\/p>\n
paragraph 27 of the evidence of PW-1 that when officers of the<\/p>\n
trap party went in the house of accused and inquired about the<\/p>\n
money, accused expressed his ignorance, then they searched the<\/p>\n
room, but the accused kept on standing there unmoved. The<\/p>\n
officers went behind the partition and recovered marked money
\n                                 (11)                   Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
from the polythene bag after about 10-20 minutes. He further<\/p>\n
admitted that the officers who searched the house of accused did<\/p>\n
not give their personal search to anybody.\n<\/p>\n
17.        Sopchand (PW-2) stated that though he went with<\/p>\n
complainant (PW-1) but remained standing near the door of the<\/p>\n
house of accused. He saw accused taking money from the<\/p>\n
complainant but he did not see where he kept the money. Since<\/p>\n
he remained out of the house, he did not know whether there was<\/p>\n
any Likha-Padhi at the house of accused. Evidence of Sopchand<\/p>\n
(PW-2) seems suspicious in view of the evidence of complainant<\/p>\n
that he gave money to accused behind the partition whereas<\/p>\n
according to Sopchand he saw complainant giving money to<\/p>\n
accused from outside of the door of the house. Sopchand stated<\/p>\n
that after complainant gave signal, officers of the trap party<\/p>\n
entered the room of accused and he and complainant remained<\/p>\n
outside the house. He did not know what they did inside the<\/p>\n
room. One of the officers, who was searching the room, told that<\/p>\n
the money was found in the polythene bag.       Sopchand (PW-2)<\/p>\n
was confronted with his police statement Ex.D\/4 wherein he<\/p>\n
stated that complainant gave Rs.500\/- to accused and accused<\/p>\n
put that money in the polythene bag hanging on the wall of the<\/p>\n
room. According to him, when officer came out of the house of<\/p>\n
accused, the polythene bag was in his hand. Thereafter they all<\/p>\n
went to Chhindwara. There was no Likha-Padhi at the house of<\/p>\n
accused. In view of the discrepant evidence of this witness, in our<\/p>\n
opinion, no reliance can be placed on him.\n<\/p>\n
18.        Evidence of SDO(P) M.S. Verma (PW-9) also appears<\/p>\n
contradictory to the evidence of Complainant (PW-1) and
\n                                     (12)                   Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
Sopchand (PW-2). This witness stated that as soon as they<\/p>\n
received signal from complainant, they reached into the house of<\/p>\n
accused. When SDO(P) Bhandare inquired from accused as to<\/p>\n
where he kept bribe money received from the complainant,<\/p>\n
accused told that he put money in the polythene bag. None of the<\/p>\n
other witnesses stated that accused told to the members of trap<\/p>\n
party that he put money in the polythene bag. According to him,<\/p>\n
seizure   memo   Ex.P\/10    was      drawn   at   the   spot   whereas<\/p>\n
complainant (PW-1) and Sopchand (PW-2) categorically stated<\/p>\n
that no Likha-Padhi was done at the place of incident. He though<\/p>\n
stated that before entering in the house of accused, members of<\/p>\n
trap party gave their search to accused, but no memorandum in<\/p>\n
that regard was drawn. In these circumstances, it cannot be<\/p>\n
accepted that members of the trap party gave their search before<\/p>\n
proceeding for trap.\n<\/p>\n
19.        Evidence    of   Joint    Collector    Manish   Shrivastava<\/p>\n
(PW-10), who played prominent role in the trap proceeding, also<\/p>\n
appears suspicious. He stated that it was not possible for him to<\/p>\n
say when trap party reached at the house of accused after<\/p>\n
receiving the signal from the complainant and in which room the<\/p>\n
accused was present. He did not remember whether accused was<\/p>\n
alone in the house or other persons were present there. He did<\/p>\n
not remember who caught the accused and searched him. It is<\/p>\n
also important to note that this witness stated that the money<\/p>\n
was found in the bag of accused which was kept beside him. He<\/p>\n
firmly stated that money was recovered from the polythene bag,<\/p>\n
but he denied that the bag was in another room. According to<\/p>\n
him, bag was with the accused. Apparently the evidence of this
\n                                      (13)                       Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
witness runs counter to the evidence of complainant and other<\/p>\n
witnesses. Similar is the position of Deputy Collector R.S.Thakur<\/p>\n
(PW-11) who though stated that            bribe money was seized from<\/p>\n
the accused, but he did not know who found that money.<\/p>\n
M.V.Bhandare and Manish Shrivastava searched and inquired<\/p>\n
about the money but he only remained standing. He did not know<\/p>\n
how many rooms were there in the house of Patwari. The money<\/p>\n
was recovered from the polythene bag which was hanging on a<\/p>\n
pole inside the room. There was no partition in the room of<\/p>\n
accused.     Initially   this   witness     stated    that     the    seizure<\/p>\n
memorandum was recorded in the house of accused but later he<\/p>\n
disclosed that memorandum was recorded in the office of<\/p>\n
Collector.\n<\/p>\n
20.          In view of the above contradictory and discrepant<\/p>\n
versions given by the prosecution witnesses, in our opinion, it<\/p>\n
cannot     be   held     with   certainty   that     accused     voluntarily<\/p>\n
accepted\/obtained marked money from the complainant. The<\/p>\n
possibility that everything was managed by Arvind Shukla and<\/p>\n
the money was planted in the house of accused cannot be ruled<\/p>\n
out. The best possible evidence about the acceptance of bribe<\/p>\n
money by the accused could have been made available by the use<\/p>\n
of phenolphthalein powder, but the same was not used. Number<\/p>\n
of persons including Arvind Shukla appeared to have entered the<\/p>\n
house of accused. In these dubious circumstances, it cannot be<\/p>\n
held that prosecution established the fact of demand and<\/p>\n
acceptance of bribe money by the accused beyond a reasonable<\/p>\n
doubt. We are of the view that learned Special Judge did not<\/p>\n
appreciate the evidence on record in correct perspective.\n<\/p>\n
                                    (14)                    Cr.A.No.1841\/1999<\/p>\n
    21.        After an overall assessment of the matter, it appears<\/p>\n
    that the story advanced by the prosecution is not true and the<\/p>\n
    defence version seems probable. In these circumstances, the<\/p>\n
    impugned judgment of conviction of appellant under sections 7<\/p>\n
    and 13(1)(d) read with 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act<\/p>\n
    and the sentence awarded to him is set aside. He is acquitted.<\/p>\n
    His bail bond and surety bond are discharged.\n<\/p>\n
    22.        Appeal allowed.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          (Rakesh Saksena)                          (M.A.Siddiqui)\n              Judge                                    Judge\nb\n  <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 (1) Cr.A.No.1841\/1999 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH: JABALPUR (AFR) Division Bench: Hon’ble Justice Shri Rakesh Saksena Hon’ble Justice Shri M.A.Siddiqui CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1841\/1999 Charanlal son of Nathulal Durve aged 39 years, resident of village Matiya Doh, Police Station Lavadhodhari […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[8,24],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-209917","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nCharan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3600,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"High Court\",\"Madhya Pradesh High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\",\"name\":\"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011","datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011"},"wordCount":3600,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["High Court","Madhya Pradesh High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011","name":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-09-20T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2019-04-13T13:13:25+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/charan-lal-vs-the-state-of-madhya-pradesh-on-21-september-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Charan Lal vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh on 21 September, 2011"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209917","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=209917"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/209917\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=209917"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=209917"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=209917"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}