{"id":249676,"date":"2006-11-02T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2006-11-01T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006"},"modified":"2018-10-17T22:09:44","modified_gmt":"2018-10-17T16:39:44","slug":"state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","title":{"rendered":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006"},"content":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India<\/div>\n
State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006<\/div>\n
Author: D Bhandari<\/div>\n
Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari<\/div>\n
           CASE NO.:\nAppeal (crl.)  261 of 2004\n\nPETITIONER:\nState of Madhya Pradesh\t\t\t   \n\nRESPONDENT:\nShambhu Dayal Nagar\t\t\t   \n\nDATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/11\/2006\n\nBENCH:\nS.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI\n\nJUDGMENT:\n<\/pre>\n
J U D G M E N T<\/p>\n
DALVEER BHANDARI, J.\n<\/p>\n
\tThis appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya
\nPradesh against the judgment of the High Court of
\nJudicature of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur, Bench at
\nGwalior, dated 30.1.2003 passed in Criminal Appeal No.2
\nof 1999.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe brief facts of this appeal, which are necessary to
\ndispose of this appeal, in a nutshell, are as follows.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe respondent Shambhu Dayal Nagar, who was
\nposted at the Police Station, Malanpur on the post of
\nAssistant Sub-Inspector was convicted under Sections 7
\nand 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of the Prevention of
\nCorruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
According to the version of the prosecution, on
\n9.8.1996 complainant Badan Singh’s sister-in-law
\n(Bhabhi) Bithola Devi, a resident of village Tukera was
\nbeaten by Jagmohan, Mahavir etc. who belonged to the
\nsame village.  A report of the said incident was made by
\nBithola Devi at the Police Station Malanpur.  The
\ninvestigation of this matter was entrusted to the
\nrespondent Shambhu Dayal, Assistant Sub-Inspector.
\nConsequently, he went to the village Tukera at the house
\nof complainant Badan Singh and told him that the
\nopposite party i.e. Mahavir etc. had filed a report against
\nthem and in that connection, the rifle of the complainant
\nand Mouser Rifle of Ram Prakash, brother of the
\ncomplainant would be seized and both, the complainant
\nand his brother would also be arrested.  The   respondent
\nasked the complainant, Badan Singh, that in case
\nRs.5000\/- was paid to him, he would neither seize the
\nrifles nor arrest them and rather the opposite party’s
\npersons will be arrested and sent to jail immediately.\n<\/p>\n
\tOn 21.8.1996, Badan Singh, the complainant told
\nthe respondent Shambhu Dayal that he would not be
\nable to arrange Rs.5000\/- and he requested the
\nrespondent to settle the amount at Rs.3500\/-. The
\nrespondent agreed to accept Rs.3500\/- (bribe money) on
\nthe condition that the said amount had to be arranged by
\nthe same evening.   The complainant was not ready to
\ngive the bribe to the respondent and wanted to get the
\nrespondent nabbed.  Therefore, on 21.8.1996, he went to
\nthe office of Shri Pradeep Runwal, Superintendent of
\nPolice, Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior with
\ncash of Rs.3500\/- and submitted a written application
\n(Ex.P1) on the above-mentioned subject.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe Superintendent of Police directed his
\nsubordinates to lay a trap for nabbing the respondent
\nwhile accepting the bribe.  For this purpose, Aditya
\nChobey, the then Manager, Industrial Development
\nCentre, Gwalior was called with a vehicle.  On 21.8.1996,
\nafter the arrival of the above-named panch witness
\nAditya Chobey, PW6 and another Panch witness
\nSrikrishan Chauhan, PW3 at the Special Police Station
\n(Office of the Public Commissioner, Gwalior), the formal
\napplication made by the complainant, Badan Singh, was
\ngiven to  Aditya Chobey.  The application was read over
\nto Badan Singh.  On the said application, Aditya Chobey
\ngave his remarks and confirmed the contents and
\nsubmission of the application by the complainant and
\nappended his signatures.  Thereafter, the complainant
\ngave 35 currency notes of the denomination of Rs.100\/-
\nfor giving them as a bribe to the respondent.  The
\nnumbers of all these currency notes were recorded.
\nInspector Surender Rai Sharma, PW11, of the
\nabovementioned establishment got a thin layer of
\nphenolphthalein powder smeared on both sides of these
\nnotes by Ram Roop Singh Ojha, Sub-Inspector. The head
\nconstable searched Badan Singh, PW1 and Surender Rai
\nSharma, PW11 and nothing was left in his pocket.  The
\ncurrency notes, smeared with phenolphthalein powder,
\nwere kept in the right side pocket of the pant worn by
\nBadan Singh and it was explained to him not to touch
\nthese notes before giving to the respondent.  Badan Singh
\nwas given instructions not to shake hands with the
\nrespondent before and after giving those currency notes
\nto him.  The complainant after reaching Vijay Mishthan
\nBhandar asked Srikrishan Chauhan PW3 to proceed and
\nrequest the respondent to come at the appointed place
\ni.e. at Vijay Mishthan Bhandar.  The respondent
\nimmediately came to the appointed place.  As already
\nagreed, the complainant had given Rs.3500\/- to the
\nrespondent and the same were accepted by the
\nresondent.  Srikrishan Chauhan PW3, panch witness,
\nwas directed to accompany the complainant to witness
\nthe proceedings of raid and hear the conversation
\nbetween the complainant and the respondent.
\nThereafter, at the abovementioned office, the solution of
\nsodium carbonate was prepared in a clean glass through
\nconstable Aparval Singh, which was colourless and the
\nfingers of both hands of Sub-Inspector Ram Roop Singh
\nwere washed in the said solution.   Thereafter, the colour
\nof the solution became pink.  It was packed in a clean
\nsmall bottle as per rules and sealed and after marking
\nthe bottle, signatures of the panchas were taken on it.  It
\nwas also explained to the complainant and the witnesses
\nthat on receiving the currency notes smeared with
\nphenolphthalein powder, this powder would be on the
\nhands of the respondent and after washing his hands in
\nthe colourless solution of sodium carbonate, the same
\nwould change into a pink coloured solution as mentioned
\nabove.\n<\/p>\n
\tIn the said office, packets of two samples each of
\nthe phenolphthalein and sodium carbonates were
\nprepared and these were kept in separate envelopes and
\nthe same were marked and sealed.  Besides Surender Rai
\nSharma, Aditya Chobey, Manager, AKVN, Gwalior, DSP,
\nI.B. Srivastava, Dy. Superintendent of Police and Amar
\nSingh Bhadoriya, Kashi Ram Mijohnia, Inspector, Head
\nConstable Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, Veer Singh and
\nconstables Aparval Singh and Srikrishan Chauhan were
\na part of the trapping team.  Ram Roop Ojha, who had
\nsmeared the powder on the currency notes, was not
\nincluded in the trap team.  All the members of the trap
\nteam were made to wash their hands with clean water at
\nthe office and the colour of solution did not change when
\ntheir hands were washed with sodium carbonate.\n<\/p>\n
\tThe preliminary panchnama (Ex.P2) dated
\n21.8.1996 was prepared by the Inspector Surender Rai
\nSharma (PW11) in respect of all the abovementioned
\nproceedings at the office of the Public Commissioner,
\nGwalior and it was signed by both the panch witnesses
\nAditya Chobey and Sri Krishan Chauhan and the
\ncomplainant.\n<\/p>\n
\tAfter the above proceedings, the trap team left for
\nMalanpur in the official vehicle.  After reaching Vijay
\nMishthan Bhandar near Malanpur Police Station, the
\ncomplainant Badan Singh and panch witness Sri Krishan
\nChauhan were sent in the said shop.  Aditya Chobey,
\nPW6 and other officers and officials of the trap team,
\nconcealing their presence, took positions near the said
\nshop.  Narender Singh Chauhan, nephew of the
\ncomplainant, was sent to the police station to call the
\nrespondent to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar.  At about 7 p.m.,
\nthe respondent came to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar in his
\nuniform on a motor cycle and spoke to the complainant
\nwhile sitting inside Vijay Mishthan Bhandar and when
\nthe respondent demanded the amount of bribe, the
\ncomplainant gave Rs.3500\/- after taking out the same
\nfrom his pocket and the respondent kept the same in the
\nright pocket of his uniform’s shirt.  On passing the pre-
\ndecided signal by the complainant, Badan Singh, the
\nconstable Aparval Singh and Bhagwati Prasad, who were
\nhiding there, entered Vijay Mishthan Bhandar and
\ncaught the respondent by his right and left hands
\nrespectively.  The other members of the trap team and
\npanch witness Aditya Chobey also entered the said
\nMishthan Bhandar within minutes and gave their
\nintroduction to the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The fingers of the respondent were washed in the
\nsolution of sodium carbonate at the spot, in the presence
\nof the panch witnesses, and the colour of solution
\nbecame pink.  The solution was kept in a small bottle as
\na sample for its chemical examination and this bottle was
\nsealed as per rules.  Thereafter, the fingers of panch
\nwitness Aditya Chobey were washed separately in the
\nsolution of sodium carbonate, in a clean glass, but its
\ncolour did not change.  This solution was also packed in
\na clean small bottle and sealed as per rules.  The panch
\nwitness Aditya Chobey took out the amount of bribe from
\nthe right side pocket of the shirt of uniform worn by the
\nrespondent and their numbers were checked and found
\nto match with the numbers mentioned in the preliminary
\npanchnama.  These notes were seized and its seizure
\nmemo (Ex.P5) was prepared at the spot by the Inspector
\nSurender Rai Sharma.  Thereafter, the shirt of the
\nuniform, which the respondent was wearing at that time,
\nwas removed from his body and its right side pocket was
\nwashed in the solution of sodium carbonate, after which
\nthe solution became pink.  This solution was packed in a
\nsmall bottle for examination and it was sealed as per
\nrules.  The above-mentioned shirt of the respondent was
\nseized vide seizure memo (Ex.P4) by Surender Rai
\nSharma and the notes recovered from the pocket of the
\nrespondent were kept in an envelope through the panch
\nwitness Aditya Chobey and the envelope was also sealed
\nas per rules.  Thereafter, the fingers of Aditya Chobey
\nwere made to be washed in the solution of sodium
\ncarbonate and the colour of solution changed.  This
\nsolution was packed in a small bottle and sealed as per
\nrules.  Signatures of the panch witnesses, complainant
\nand the respondent were taken on these bottles and the
\nsignatures of panch witnesses and the respondent were
\ntaken on the envelope containing currency notes of bribe,
\nseizure memos of the shirt and notes.  The panchnama
\n(Ex.P3) was prepared at the spot by the Inspector
\nSurender Rai Sharma in respect of all the above-
\nmentioned proceedings.  This panchnama was signed by
\nthe panch witnesses and the complainant.\n<\/p>\n
On 21.8.1996, The Investigating Officer, Surender
\nRai Sharma, prepared the sketch map (Ex.P6) of the
\nplace of occurrence i.e. Vijay Mishthan Bhandar at
\nMalanpur.  On the same date, the Rajdoot Motor Cycle
\nNo.MP 06 9315 of the respondent was seized vide seizure
\nmemo (Ex.P7).\n<\/p>\n
On 27.9.1996, carbon copy of the written report
\ngiven to the respondent by Maniram and Mahavir bearing
\nacknowledgement of receipt by the respondent was seized
\nvide seizure memo (Ex.P10) on its production by
\nJagmohan.  The FIR (Ex.P23) was lodged by Surender Rai
\nSharma at Gwalior, which was later sent to the Police
\nStation Bhopal for the registration of the case, where a
\nCase No.69\/96 was registered on 23.8.1996 vide report
\nEx.P24.  The small bottles related to the proceedings of
\nthe said case and other seized items were sent to
\nForensic Science Laboratory, Sagar for their examination.
\nThe written permission (Ex.P16) duly signed by Shri N.K.
\nBarya, Additional Secretary of Legal Department of the
\nState of Madhya Pradesh regarding prosecution of the
\nrespondent was received on 16.1.1997 and after the
\nformal investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before
\nthis Court on 7.2.1997.\n<\/p>\n
Charges under Sections 7<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with
\nsection 13(2)<\/a> of the P.C. Act, 1988 [in the alternate,
\nunder section 5(1)(d)<\/a> read with section 5(2)<\/a> of the P.C.
\nAct, 1947] were framed against the respondent.  The
\nrespondent did not plead guilty to the charges and stated
\nin his defence that he has been falsely implicated in this
\ncase.\n<\/p>\n
In support of its case, the prosecution examined
\ntwelve witnesses  PW1 Badan Singh, the complainant,
\nPW2 Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, PW3 Sri Krishan, PW4
\nJagmohan, PW5 Ram Roop Singh, Sub Inspector, PW6
\nAditya Chobey, Manager, District Industrial Development
\nCentre, Gwalior, PW7 Vijay Kumar Mudgal, Inspector,
\nPW8 K.N. Sharma, PW9 R.K. Gupta, PW10 Dalel Singh,
\nPW11 Surender Rai Sharma and PW12 Shiv Pratap
\nSingh, Inspector.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tIn his statement, the complainant, Badan Singh,
\nPW1 stated that the respondent had told him that there
\nwas a complaint against him and consequently his rifle
\nand the rifle of his brother have to be seized.  The
\nrespondent told him that if he was paid Rs.5000\/-, he
\nwould neither seize the guns nor would he arrest them.
\nBadan Singh, PW1 stated that he touched the feet of the
\nrespondent and mentioned to him that they are ready to
\npay Rs.3500\/-.  There was a settlement at a figure of
\nRs.3500\/- on the condition that this amount had to be
\ndelivered to the respondent at the Vijay Misthan Bhandar
\non the same evening.  Badan Singh, PW1 stated that he
\nhad decided to get the respondent apprehended and
\nconsequently went to the Superintendent of Police for
\nthat purpose.\n<\/p>\n
The complainant, Badan Singh, PW1 gave
\nRs.3500\/- in the office of Superintendent of Police. One
\npolice officer applied powder on the currency notes and
\nBadan Singh, PW1 was asked not to touch the currency
\nnotes.  A trap was organized to nab the respondent.  The
\nrespondent came to Vijay Mishthan Bhandar on
\nmotorcycle in the evening as decided on the appointed
\nplace to collect his bribe money of Rs.3500\/-.  PW1 gave
\nRs.3500\/- to the respondent which he kept in the right
\nhand pocket of his shirt and immediately thereafter on
\nthe complainant’s moving his head, the respondent was
\ncaught by the members of the trap party while accepting
\nthe bribe money.  The vigilance people got a solution of
\none powder prepared.  Aditya Chaubey, PW6 took out
\nmoney from the right pocket of the respondent.
\nThereafter, Aditya Chaubey had washed his hands in the
\nsolution.  The colour of the water turned pink.
\nThereafter, that water was sealed in a bottle and the
\nsignature of PW1 was obtained.  The currency notes were
\nsealed in an envelope and PW1 had appended his
\nsignature on them.  The motorcycle of the respondent
\nwas also seized.  PW1 withstood the cross examination
\nand remained unshaken.  Aditya Chaubey, who was
\nposted at the Industrial Development Centre, Gwalior
\nalso fully supported the case of the prosecution.  He also
\nwithstood the lengthy cross-examination.\n<\/p>\n
\t\tSurender Rai Sharma, PW11 who was posted in the
\noffice of the Special Police Establishment also fully
\nsupported the case of the prosecution.\n<\/p>\n
Bhagwati Prasad Sharma, PW2 also supported the
\nprosecution version.  Srikrishna, PW3, of course, did not
\nsupport the prosecution version.   Jagmohan, PW4 also
\nsupported the prosecution version.  Other formal
\nwitnesses also supported the basic case of the
\nprosecution.  The Special Judge also considered the
\nentire evidence, documents and a number of judgments
\nof this Court and the High Courts and came to a definite
\nconclusion that the prosecution has succeeded  in
\nestablishing its case and found the respondent guilty of
\noffence punishable under Section 7<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read
\nwith Section 13(2)<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act,
\n1988 and sentenced the respondent with punishment of
\none year rigorous imprisonment  and a fine of Rs.500
\nunder Section 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with Section 13(2)<\/a> of the said
\nAct.  Under Section 7<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act
\nalso the respondent was sentenced to one year rigorous
\nimprisonment.  The Court directed both the sentences to
\nrun concurrently and in case of non-payment of fine, the
\nrespondent was directed to further undergo
\nimprisonment of two months.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent aggrieved by the said judgment of
\nthe Special Judge preferred an appeal before the High
\nCourt of Judicature at Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur at
\nGwalior Bench.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court again re-evaluated the evidence and
\nset-aside the judgment of the Special Court on the
\nfollowing grounds:\n<\/p>\n
(1)\tThat the Special Court wrongly placed
\nreliance on the testimony of Badan Singh,
\nPW1.  The High Court discarded his
\ntestimony on the ground that the upper
\nright pocket of the shirt is not the normal
\nplace for keeping the currency notes;\n<\/p>\n
(2)\tThe High Court discarded the prosecution
\nversion because according to the High
\nCourt the upper right pocket of the shirt
\ncannot contain 35 currency notes of
\ndenomination of Rs.100\/- unless  they
\nare folded;\n<\/p>\n
(3)\tThe High Court also discarded the
\ntestimony of Badan Singh, PW1 on the
\nground that perhaps he had forced his
\ncurrency notes in the pocket of the
\nrespondent; and<\/p>\n
(4)\tThe High Court also found substance in
\nthe argument that the traces of
\nphenolphthalein powder can come in the
\nhands of resisting respondent.\n<\/p>\n
The High Court allowed the appeal filed by the
\nrespondent and set-aside the judgment of the Special
\nCourt.  The State of Madhya Pradesh being aggrieved by
\nthe said judgment has filed this appeal on the ground
\nthat the High Court was clearly in error in setting aside
\nthe well reasoned judgment of the trial court on totally
\nerroneous and untenable findings.\n<\/p>\n
According to the appellant – State of Madhya
\nPradesh, the finding of the High Court that
\n(A)    Badan Singh, PW1 had forced his currency notes in
\nthe pocket of the respondent is wholly untenable;
\n(B)   The currency notes of Rs.3500\/- were recovered in
\nthe presence of Badan Singh PW1.  The version has
\nbeen fully supported by the two independent
\nwitnesses;\n<\/p>\n
(C) Badan Singh PW1 had fully supported the
\nprosecution version.  Independent witnesses Aditya
\nChobey, PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma, PW11 also
\nsupported prosecution story.  The High Court
\nseriously erred in rejecting the prosecution version;
\nand
\n(D)   The High Court erroneously rejected the prosecution
\nversion on the ground that the bribe amount is not
\nkept in the upper pocket of the shirt.\n<\/p>\n
The State of Madya Pradesh filed special leave
\npetition against the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent in pursuance to the show-cause
\nnotice of this Court filed a detailed counter affidavit
\nstating that the High Court has carefully re-appreciated
\nand re-evaluated the evidence of the prosecution and
\nconclusion arrived at by the High Court is based on
\ncorrect appraisal of the evidence on record, therefore, no
\ninterference is called for by this Court as the appeal does
\nnot raise any substantial question of law for
\nconsideration of this Court in its extra-ordinary
\njurisdiction under Article 136<\/a> of the Constitution.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent also mentioned that Badan Singh
\nPW1, the complainant supported the story of
\nprosecution.  His version ought not to have been believed
\nby this Court because he had harboured some grudge
\nagainst the respondent, particularly when his own cousin
\nSri Krishna PW3 did not support the prosecution version.
\nAt no stage, the respondent had alleged mala fides
\nagainst the appellant.  We find no merit in this argument
\nof the respondent.\n<\/p>\n
 According to the respondent, the prosecution
\nversion does not inspire any confidence because
\naccording to the prosecution story, the bribe amount was
\nrecovered from the upper pocket of the shirt.  Usually,
\nbribe money is not kept in the upper pocket.  This
\nargument of the respondent is also wholly untenable.\n<\/p>\n
It was urged by the respondent that the entire story
\nof the prosecution is fabricated and no reliance should be
\nplaced on it by the Court.  The learned counsel appearing
\nfor the respondent submitted that a lenient view may be
\ntaken because sending the respondent to jail after ten
\nyears would lead to tremendous hardship.\n<\/p>\n
We have carefully considered the rival contentions.
\nThe fact of recovery of Rs.3500\/- from the respondent
\nhas been fully corroborated by Badan Singh, PW1 and
\nalso by two independent witnesses, Aditya Chobey PW6
\nand Surender Rai Sharma PW11.\n<\/p>\n
We do not find any merit in the submission that
\nBadan Singh PW1 because of previous enemity had
\nfalsely implicated the respondent in the instant case.
\nThe resondent had placed no material to substantiate
\nthis argument.\n<\/p>\n
We also do not find any merit in the statement that
\nthe guns were not seized.  According to the prosecution
\nversion, when the respondent demanded and accepted
\nthe bribe of Rs.3500\/-, there was no question of seizing
\nthe guns.\n<\/p>\n
On careful examination of the prosecution evidence
\nand the documents on record, we too come to the definite
\nconclusion that the respondent is clearly guilty of the
\noffence and the Special Judge was fully justified in
\nconvicting the respondent under Sections 7<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a>
\nread with Section 13(2)<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption
\nAct, 1988.  The High Court erroneously set aside the well
\nreasoned judgment of the Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
In view of the evidence and documents on record, it
\nis difficult to uphold the impugned judgment and
\nconsequently, the impugned judgment of the High Court
\nis set aside and the judgment of the Special Judge is
\nrestored.\n<\/p>\n
It is difficult to accept the prayer of the respondent
\nthat a lenient view be taken in this case.  The corruption
\nby public servants has become a gigantic problem.  It has
\nspread everywhere.  No facet of public activity has been
\nleft unaffected by the stink of corruption. It has deep and
\npervasive impact on the functioning of the entire country.
\nLarge scale corruption retards the national building
\nactivities and everyone has to suffer on that count.  As
\nhas been aptly observed in Swatantar Singh v. State of
\nHaryana<\/a> reported in (1997) 4 SCC 14, corruption is
\ncorroding like cancerous lymph nodes, the vital veins of
\nthe body politics, social fabric of efficiency in the public
\nservice and demoralizing the honest officers.  The
\nefficiency in public service would improve only when the
\npublic servant devotes his sincere attention and does the
\nduty diligently, truthfully, honestly and devotes himself
\nassiduously to the performance of the duties of his post.
\nThe reputation of corrupt would gather thick and
\nunchaseably clouds around the conduct of the officer and
\ngain notoriety much faster than the smoke.\n<\/p>\n
This Court in Hazari Lal v. State (Delhi
\nAdministration<\/a>) reported in (1980) 2 SCC 390, observed
\nthat where the recovery of money coupled with other
\ncircumstances lead to the conclusion that the respondent
\nreceived gratification from some person, the Court would
\ncertainly draw a presumption under Section 4(1)<\/a> of the
\nPrevention of Corruption Act.   In the instant case, the
\nrecovery of 35 notes of the denomination of 100 is fully
\nproved by Badan Singh PW1 and two other independent
\nwitnesses Aditya Chobey PW6 and Surender Rai Sharma
\nPW11.\n<\/p>\n
On consideration of the totality of the
\ncircumstances of this case, the prosecution has been able
\nto establish on the basis of evidence on record that the
\nrespondent had received bribe and, therefore, he is guilty
\nof the offence under Sections 7<\/a> and 13(1)(d)<\/a> read with
\nSection 13(2)<\/a> of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.\n<\/p>\n
The respondent was convicted by the Special Judge
\non the basis of overwhelming evidence on record.  The
\nHigh Court without appreciating the facts of this case in
\nproper perspective set-aside the judgment of the Special
\nCourt.  The reasoning given by the High Court for setting
\naside the judgment cannot stand the test of scrutiny for a
\nmoment and in this view of the matter.  Consequently,
\nthe judgment and sentence awarded by the Special Court
\nis restored.  The appeal filed by the State of Madhya
\nPradesh deserves to be allowed.  It is directed
\naccordingly.<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Supreme Court of India State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 Author: D Bhandari Bench: S.B. Sinha, Dalveer Bhandari CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.) 261 of 2004 PETITIONER: State of Madhya Pradesh RESPONDENT: Shambhu Dayal Nagar DATE OF JUDGMENT: 02\/11\/2006 BENCH: S.B. SINHA & DALVEER BHANDARI JUDGMENT: J U D G […]<\/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":[30],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-249676","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-supreme-court-of-india"],"yoast_head":"\nState Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\" \/>\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=\"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2018-10-17T16:39:44+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=\"19 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006\",\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-17T16:39:44+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\"},\"wordCount\":3739,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Supreme Court of India\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\",\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2018-10-17T16:39:44+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006\"}]},{\"@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":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - 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\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2018-10-17T16:39:44+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":"19 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006","datePublished":"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-17T16:39:44+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006"},"wordCount":3739,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Supreme Court of India"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006","name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2006-11-01T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2018-10-17T16:39:44+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/state-of-madhya-pradesh-vs-shambhu-dayal-nagar-on-2-november-2006#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"State Of Madhya Pradesh vs Shambhu Dayal Nagar on 2 November, 2006"}]},{"@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\/249676","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=249676"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/249676\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=249676"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=249676"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=249676"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}