{"id":7534,"date":"2011-07-27T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2011-07-26T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011"},"modified":"2014-06-25T13:51:07","modified_gmt":"2014-06-25T08:21:07","slug":"rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","title":{"rendered":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011"},"content":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court<\/div>\n
Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011<\/div>\n
                                              (1)             Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997\n\n\n                  HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR\n\n           DIVISION BENCH:HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA\n                          HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A.SIDDIQUI\n\n                           CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2239\/1997\n\nAPPELLANT:                       Rajesh Kumar Goswami S\/o R.G.Goswami, aged\n                                 37 years, Bank Adhikari, Chhindwara-Seoni\n                                 Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Seoni, R\/o 848, Vijay\n                                 Nagar Madhotal, P.S. Gohalpur, Jabalpur (M.P.)\n\n                                         Versus\n\n\nRESPONDENT:                       The State of Madhya Pradesh\n------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------\n<\/pre>\n
For the Appellant                  :                Shri S.C.Datt, Senior Advocate with
\n                                                    Shri Siddharth Datt, Advocate.\n<\/p>\n
For the Respondent\/State :                          Shri Vikram Singh, Standing Counsel
\n                                                    for C.B.I.\n<\/p>\n
Date of hearing : 21\/07\/2011
\nDate of judgment: 27\/07\/2011<\/p>\n
                                        (J U D G M E N T )
\nPer: Rakesh Saksena; J,<\/p>\n
        Appellant has filed this appeal against the judgment dated 22nd<\/p>\n
October, 1997 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge\/Special Judge<\/p>\n
(C.B.I.) Jabalpur in Special Case No. 08\/1989, convicting him under<\/p>\n
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act, 1988 and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for two<\/p>\n
years with fine of Rs. 5000\/- on each count respectively.                          Substantive<\/p>\n
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.<\/p>\n
2.      In short, facts of the case are that in the month of November,<\/p>\n
1989, appellant R.K.Goswami was functioning as Branch Manager of<\/p>\n
Nagan-Deori Branch of Chhindwara-Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank at
\n                                         (2)             Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
Nagan-Deori, District Seoni.        This Bank was sponsored by the Central<\/p>\n
Bank of India. On the application of complainant Mohanlal Uikey, a loan<\/p>\n
for a sum of Rs. 6000\/- was sanctioned. As first installment, a sum of Rs.<\/p>\n
1,000\/- was paid to him by the appellant on 14.4.2008.                          When<\/p>\n
complainant Mohanlal approached to appellant for remaining amount of<\/p>\n
Rs. 5000\/- on 31.10.1989, appellant demanded Rs. 500\/- by way of<\/p>\n
illegal gratification for disbursement of the said amount.<\/p>\n
3.       Since, complainant did not want to give bribe, he went to C.B.I.<\/p>\n
Office    Jabalpur      and    submitted      a   written   complaint     Ex.   P\/12.<\/p>\n
Superintendent of Police, C.B.I. recorded the first information report Ex.<\/p>\n
P\/17 and deputed Inspector R.K.Shukla (PW6) to inspect the matter.<\/p>\n
Inspector R.K.Shukla requisitioned services of two independent witnesses<\/p>\n
namely K.K.Sareen (PW3) and Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4), who were the<\/p>\n
employees of Oriental Insurance Company. These Officers on 2.11.1989<\/p>\n
verified the facts from the complainant. R.K.Shukla (PW5) obtained Rs.<\/p>\n
500\/-     from    the    complainant       and    demonstrated      the   effect   of<\/p>\n
Phenolphthalein powder to complainant                 and other witnesses.         He<\/p>\n
arranged for a trap and asked complainant to hand over the bribe money<\/p>\n
of Rs. 500\/- to appellant and give a signal. A pre trap panchnama Ex. P\/<\/p>\n
13 was prepared.\n<\/p>\n
4.       On 2.11.1989, complainant and the members of the trap party<\/p>\n
reached     the   Bank        Nagan-Deori,    where     appellant   was     working.<\/p>\n
Complainant handed over tainted currency notes of Rs. 500\/- to appellant
\n                                    (3)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
and gave prefixed signal to C.B.I. people.     Inspector R.K.Shukla and<\/p>\n
other members of the trap party caught appellant’s hands and washed<\/p>\n
them with sodium carbonate solution which turned pink.           Tainted<\/p>\n
currency notes were recovered from the pocket of appellant.        When<\/p>\n
pocket of the pants of appellant was washed with sodium carbonate<\/p>\n
solution, it also turned pink.    All the solutions were seized and a<\/p>\n
memorandum of the trap proceedings Ex. P\/14 was drawn. On the same<\/p>\n
day, loan file of the complainant was seized vide memorandum Ex. P\/15<\/p>\n
and spot map Ex. P\/16 was drawn.          After further investigation and<\/p>\n
obtaining the requisite sanction Ex. P\/1, charge sheet was filed in the<\/p>\n
Court of Special Judge.\n<\/p>\n
5.    On charges being framed appellant pleaded false implication. His<\/p>\n
defence as per his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal<\/p>\n
Procedure was that complainant had given Rs. 500\/- to him for getting<\/p>\n
them deposited in his saving bank account. He had handed over the said<\/p>\n
amount to cashier Ramesh Maravi.         He had sanctioned the loan to<\/p>\n
complainant according to rules and had asked him to bring license from<\/p>\n
the forest department. According to him, in the past also complainant<\/p>\n
often handed over money to him for depositing in the saving account.<\/p>\n
Receipts were used to be issued by the cashier later on.<\/p>\n
6.    Prosecution examined six witnesses to establish its case viz.<\/p>\n
Sudhakar Trimbak Karkhanis (PW1), Hemant Jha (PW2), K.K.Sarin (PW3),<\/p>\n
Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4), Inspector R.K.Shukla (PW5) and complainant
\n                                     (4)           Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
Mohanlal Uikey (PW6). Appellant, to substantiate his defence, examined<\/p>\n
Ramesh Kumar Maravi (DW1) and             Somnath Nema (DW2).      Learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge, after trial and upon appreciation of the evidence adduced<\/p>\n
in the case, convicted and sentenced the appellant of the charges under<\/p>\n
Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of<\/p>\n
Corruption Act. Aggrieved by his conviction, appellant has challenged the<\/p>\n
impugned judgment in this appeal.\n<\/p>\n
7.    We have heard the learned counsel for the parties.<\/p>\n
8.    It was no longer disputed that at the relevant time appellant was<\/p>\n
working as Branch Manager in Chhindwara-Seoni, Kshetriya Gramin Bank<\/p>\n
and as such he was a public servant.\n<\/p>\n
9.    So far as the sanction Ex. P\/1 for the prosecution against the<\/p>\n
appellant is concerned, it was proved by Sudhakar Trimbak (PW1), who<\/p>\n
on 23.12.1989 was functioning as Chairman of Chhindwara-Seoni<\/p>\n
Kshetriya Gramin Bank, Chhindwara. He categorically stated that he had<\/p>\n
accorded sanction after thorough          study of the documents produced<\/p>\n
before him. He perused the evidence of witnesses, complaint, recovery<\/p>\n
memorandum and loan file etc. Even otherwise, learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
appellant has not challenged the validity of sanction accorded by<\/p>\n
Sudhakar Trimbak (PW1).\n<\/p>\n
10.   Hemant Jha (PW2), who in the month of November, 1989 was<\/p>\n
posted in the head quarter of the said Bank as District Coordinator<\/p>\n
deposed that appellant was posted in Nagan-Deori Branch as a Branch
\n                                    (5)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
Manager. He was empowered to sanction loans to the extent of Rs.<\/p>\n
10,000\/-. He had sanctioned loan of Rs. 6000\/- to Mohanlal Uikey. This<\/p>\n
fact was not disputed by the appellant himself in his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.\n<\/p>\n
11.   Learned counsel for the appellant contended that complainant<\/p>\n
(PW6) had turned hostile. He did not say in the Court that he gave Rs.<\/p>\n
500\/- to appellant by way of bribe. There was no evidence on record to<\/p>\n
indicate that appellant made any demand of illegal gratification. The<\/p>\n
person, who scribed the complaint Ex. P\/12 was not examined in the<\/p>\n
Court, therefore, it was not established that any demand was made by<\/p>\n
the appellant.\n<\/p>\n
12.   Complainant (PW6) deposed that appellant asked him to bring the<\/p>\n
license of carpenter and said that only then his remaining amount of loan<\/p>\n
would be paid. He also asked him to deposit Rs. 500\/- before bringing<\/p>\n
license. Since, he had no money at that time, he went away and<\/p>\n
discussed the matter with some persons who advised him to go to<\/p>\n
Jabalpur C.B.I. He submitted a written complaint in the C.B.I. Office. He<\/p>\n
got the said complaint written by Ramesh Shrivastava. He stated that<\/p>\n
the complaint Ex. P\/12 was written according to his instructions.     He,<\/p>\n
however, stated that the word `bribe’ in it was not written on his<\/p>\n
instruction, but rest of the part of the complaint was got written by him.<\/p>\n
Complainant (PW6) admitted his signatures on Ex. P\/12.           In these<\/p>\n
circumstances, merely the non examination of Ramesh Shrivastava, who
\n                                    (6)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
scribed the complaint, in our opinion, does not affect the credibility of<\/p>\n
complaint Ex. P\/12.\n<\/p>\n
13.   According to prosecution case, K.K.Sarin (PW3) and Dr. A.K.Verma<\/p>\n
(PW4) verified from the complainant about his making the complaint.<\/p>\n
Learned counsel for the appellant submitted that K.K.Sarin (PW3) was a<\/p>\n
stock witness of C.B.I.. He had appeared as witness for C.B.I. in 3-4<\/p>\n
cases, therefore, no reliance could be placed on his evidence. As far as<\/p>\n
Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) is concerned, he was also working in the same<\/p>\n
Office in which K.K.Sarin (PW3) was working, therefore, his evidence was<\/p>\n
also not trustworthy. Learned counsel submitted that the evidence of<\/p>\n
Dr.A.K.Verma (PW4) was also not reliable because his statement under<\/p>\n
Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was read over to him<\/p>\n
before he entered the witness-box and he was asked to give evidence in<\/p>\n
the Court on the same lines.        In these circumstances, trial Court<\/p>\n
committed error in placing reliance on the evidence of the aforesaid<\/p>\n
witnesses.    He further submitted that the evidence of Inspector<\/p>\n
R.K.Shukla (PW5) was inconsistent with the evidence of aforesaid<\/p>\n
witnesses.   It was not proved beyond doubt that tainted currency notes<\/p>\n
were recovered from the pocket of the pants of the appellant. From the<\/p>\n
spot map Ex. P\/16, it seemed that the said notes were recovered from<\/p>\n
the table of accused kept in the office.   Inspector Devendra Singh, who<\/p>\n
had drawn the said map (Ex. P\/16) was not examined in the Court,<\/p>\n
therefore, learned Special Judge committed error in convicting the
\n                                         (7)          Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
appellant. Learned counsel placed reliance on the decisions rendered by<\/p>\n
the Apex Court in G.V. Nanjundiah Vs. State (Delhi Administration)-AIR<\/p>\n
1987 SC 2402, Banarsi Dass Vs. State of Haryana- AIR 2010 SC 1589 and<\/p>\n
Division Bench judgment of this Court namely Ramvilas Ramdin and others<\/p>\n
Vs. State of M.P.- 1984 MPLJ 492.\n<\/p>\n
14.   K.K.Sarin (PW3), who was Assistant Manager in Oriental Insurance<\/p>\n
Company, Regional Office, Jabalpur admitted that he appeared as<\/p>\n
witness in three trap cases of C.B.I.. Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) also worked<\/p>\n
in the same Office.\n<\/p>\n
15.   For appreciating the evidence of such witnesses, in the case of G.V.<\/p>\n
Nanjundiah (supra) the Apex Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
        ” Learned Special Judge and also the High Court have placed
\n        much    reliance   upon   the     evidence   of   R.L.Verma   and
\n        R.N.Khanna and the Deputy Superintendent of Police as to the
\n        acceptance of the bribe by the appellant and recovery of the
\n        bribe amount from him.       R.L. Verma and R.N.Khanna have
\n        been stated to be two independent witnesses. So far as R.N.
\n        Khanna is concerned, he categorically admitted in his cross
\n        examination that he had earlier joined three or four such raids
\n        for traps organised by the C.B.I.. Khanna and Verma work in
\n        the same office and there is substance in the contention made
\n        on behalf of the appellant that both of them are very much
\n        known to the police.      It was the Deputy Superintendent of
\n        Police who had called them from their office for the purpose
\n        of being trap witnesses.         We do not think that in the
\n        circumstances, either of them can be called an independent
\n        witness.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
16.   At the relevant time, Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) was also posted as
\n                                    (8)          Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
Assistant Regional Manager in the Oriental Insurance Company in which<\/p>\n
K.K.Sarin (PW3) was posted.       Apart from it, Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) in<\/p>\n
para-6 of his statement admitted that an Advocate read over to him his<\/p>\n
previous statement in the verandah of the Court and that he was asked to<\/p>\n
give same statement before the Court. That Advocate told to him that<\/p>\n
since the incident had occurred long back, therefore, he was making him<\/p>\n
to recollect the same. In Ramvilas Ramdin (supra) Division Bench of this<\/p>\n
Court dealt with this aspect in great detail and held that earlier statement<\/p>\n
of a witness recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure<\/p>\n
read over to him and witness asked to give the same in Court renders his<\/p>\n
testimony valueless. It was further held that the statement made by the<\/p>\n
witness to the police during the course of investigation was made use of in<\/p>\n
contravention of section 162, Criminal Procedure Code. Nobody can say<\/p>\n
what the witness would have said had his memory not been refreshed in<\/p>\n
that manner before he entered the witness box. It does not make any<\/p>\n
difference that the statement was narrated to him not when he was in the<\/p>\n
witness-box but shortly before entering the witness-box because the fact<\/p>\n
remains that it was narrated to him for the purpose of giving evidence at<\/p>\n
the trial. That tantamount to making use of the statement at the trial.<\/p>\n
AIR 1941 PC 75 and 1968 Cri. L.J. 54.\n<\/p>\n
17.   Learned counsel for the appellant contended that since the evidence<\/p>\n
of alleged independent witnesses was not trustworthy, appellant cannot<\/p>\n
be convicted merely on the evidence of complainant, who turned hostile
\n                                         (9)           Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
and gave discrepant and inconsistent versions, and on the evidence of<\/p>\n
Investigating Officer R.K.Shukla (PW5), whose evidence appeared<\/p>\n
contrary to the spot map Ex. P\/16.             Counsel placed reliance on the<\/p>\n
decision of Banarsi Dass (supra) in which complainant and another witness<\/p>\n
turned hostile. The Apex Court dealt with the matter as under:<\/p>\n
        ”   PW2 insisted on changing the Khasra Girdawaris and after
\n        she got annoyed , she got him falsely implicated.           Money
\n        alleged to have been recovered from him, in fact, was lying on
\n        the table without his knowledge or demand. PW-2 has also
\n        stated in her statement that she kept the money on the table
\n        after     some   altercation   with   the   accused.   In   these
\n        circumstances, it is difficult for the Court to hold that the
\n        prosecution has established the offence against the accused,
\n        that he accepted the money voluntarily as illegal gratification.
\n        The effect of the statement of PW2 and PW4 has a substantial
\n        adverse effect on the case of the prosecution.         There are
\n        other witnesses examined by the prosecution which are formal
\n        witnesses and in the absence of support of PW2 and PW4, the
\n        prosecution has not been able to establish the charge
\n        (demand and acceptance of illegal gratification by the
\n        accused), thus entitling him to some benefit on the technical
\n        ground of two witnesses i.e. PW2 and PW4 turning hostile.
\n            In the light of the statement of two hostile witnesses PW2
\n        and PW4, the demand and the                 acceptance of illegal
\n        gratification alleged to have been received by the accused for
\n        favouring PW2 by recording the Khasra Girdawaris in the
\n        name of her mother cannot be said to have been proved by
\n        the prosecution in accordance with law. We make it clear that
\n        it is only for the two witnesses having turned hostile and they
\n        having denied their statement made under Section 161 of the
\n        Cr.P.C.     despite confrontation that the accused may be
\n                                      (10)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
        entitled to acquittal on technical ground. But, in no way we
\n        express the opinion that the statement of witnesses including
\n        official witnesses PW10 and PW11, are not accepted by the
\n        Court. Similarly, we have no reason to disbelieve the recovery
\n        of Ex. P-1 to P-4 vide Ex. P-D.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
18.   On perusal of the evidence of complainant (PW6), it is apparent that<\/p>\n
he stated that though the complaint Ex. P\/12 was written according to his<\/p>\n
instructions, but he did not mention therein the word          `bribe’.   This<\/p>\n
indicates his deliberate expression that he did not want to impute<\/p>\n
criminality on the part of appellant. Of course, it is not always necessary<\/p>\n
that while demand is made by an accused, either accused or the<\/p>\n
complainant should use specifically the word `bribe’, but here complainant<\/p>\n
clarified that Manager asked him to deposit Rs. 500\/-. When he went in<\/p>\n
the Office, on asking of the Manager, he put the money on the table and<\/p>\n
gave signal to C.B.I. team. When trap party entered the Office, the money<\/p>\n
was not found with the Manager, it was found on the table of cashier<\/p>\n
Maravi along with Rs. 150\/- of some body else which was separated by the<\/p>\n
Officers of C.B.I.   He admitted that Manager told him that unless he<\/p>\n
deposited Rs. 500\/- he would not get remaining amount of Rs. 5,000\/-,<\/p>\n
therefore, he made a complaint with C.B.I.         In cross examination, he<\/p>\n
admitted that he did not give bribe money to appellant. He had two<\/p>\n
accounts in the Bank. Often Bank Manager took money from him and<\/p>\n
deposited in his accounts. According to him, when the appellant demanded<\/p>\n
money, he thought that money was to be deposited in his one of the
\n                                        (11)           Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
accounts. Complainant further admitted that he had got Rs. 1,000\/-<\/p>\n
towards loan, but appellant had told him that unless he brought a license<\/p>\n
from the Forest Department for furniture, he would not get remaining<\/p>\n
amount.       Thus, while examining the evidence of complainant Mohanlal<\/p>\n
(PW6) in the light of ratio of the decision of Apex Court in Banarsi Dass,<\/p>\n
we find that        trial Court committed error in placing reliance on his<\/p>\n
testimony.\n<\/p>\n
19.   In view of the observations made by the Apex Court in G.V.<\/p>\n
Nanjundiah, we are unable to place reliance on the evidence of K.K.Sarin<\/p>\n
(PW3) and Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) who worked in the same Office and one<\/p>\n
of them namely K.K.Sarin (PW3) happened to be a witness of 3-4 raids<\/p>\n
conducted by police C.B.I. Apart from it, Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4) gave his<\/p>\n
statement before the Court after he was read over his previous statement<\/p>\n
and was asked to state the same in the Court. In case of Raghbir Singh<\/p>\n
Vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1976 SC 91 Apex Court observed:<\/p>\n
          ”    We must take this opportunity of impressing on the
\n          officers functioning in the anti-corruption department to insist
\n          on observing this safeguard as zealously and scrupulously as
\n          possible for the protection of public servants against whom a
\n          trap may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to
\n          secure really independent and respectable witness so that the
\n          evidence in regard to raid inspires confidence in the mind of
\n          the court and the court is not left in any doubt as to whether
\n          or not any money was paid to the public servant by way of
\n          bribe.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
20.   Learned counsel for the C.B.I. submitted that even if the trap
\n                                    (12)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
witnesses turn hostile or found not independent, the Court may accept the<\/p>\n
prosecution version on the basis of evidence of complainant and the police<\/p>\n
officers. He placed reliance on the decision of the Apex Court rendered in<\/p>\n
the State of U.P. Vs. Dr. G.K. Ghosh AIR 1984 SC 1453, wherein it was held<\/p>\n
that in case of an offence of demanding and accepting illegal gratification,<\/p>\n
depending on the circumstances of the case, the Court may feel safe in<\/p>\n
accepting the prosecution version on the basis of the oral evidence of the<\/p>\n
complainant and the police officers even if the trap witnesses turn hostile<\/p>\n
or are found not to be independent. When besides such evidence there is<\/p>\n
circumstantial evidence which is consistent with the guilt of the accused<\/p>\n
and not consistent with his innocence, there should be no difficulty in<\/p>\n
upholding the prosecution case.\n<\/p>\n
21.   In the case in hands besides the evidence of trap witnesses, we<\/p>\n
have found that the complainant Mohanlal (PW6) himself did not<\/p>\n
substantially support the prosecution version and was, therefore, declared<\/p>\n
hostile. Though, he supported the prosecution story to some extent about<\/p>\n
the demand of Rs. 500\/- by the appellant and handing over the tainted<\/p>\n
money to him, but he in clear terms stated that it was not bribe.        On<\/p>\n
several occasions he gave money to appellant or appellant himself fetched<\/p>\n
money from him for depositing the same into his accounts. He never took<\/p>\n
the demand of money made by the appellant as a demand of illegal<\/p>\n
gratification. In these circumstances, we find the facts and circumstances<\/p>\n
of the present case different from the case of Dr. G.K.Ghosh (supra).\n<\/p>\n
                                      (13)              Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
Similarly the decision of the Apex Court in Ramesh Gupta Vs. State of M.P.<\/p>\n
-1995 Cr.L.J. 3656 wherein it was observed that in a bribery case, for<\/p>\n
demand and acceptance of bribe corroboration to the evidence of<\/p>\n
complainant can be by way of circumstantial evidence also, has no<\/p>\n
application since in the present case the complainant himself in substance<\/p>\n
did not support the prosecution version.\n<\/p>\n
22.   Learned counsel for the C.B.I. Placing reliance on the decisions of<\/p>\n
Apex Court in Gian Singh Vs. State of Punjab- AIR 1974 SC 1024 and Hazari<\/p>\n
Lal Vs. The State (Delhi Admn.)-AIR 1980 SC 873 contended that in a trap<\/p>\n
case the conviction of accused may be based on the evidence of police<\/p>\n
officer who laid the trap, if his evidence is trustworthy. In case of Hazari<\/p>\n
Lal (supra), Supreme Court observed:\n<\/p>\n
        ”   Where the evidence of the Police Officer who laid the trap
\n        is found entirely trustworthy, there is no need to seek any
\n        corroboration.   There is no rule of prudence, which has
\n        crystallized into a rule of law, nor indeed any rule of
\n        prudence, which requires that the evidence of such officers
\n        should be treated on the same footing as evidence of
\n        accomplices and there should be insistence on corroboration.
\n        In the facts and circumstances of a particular case a Court
\n        may be disinclined to act upon the evidence of such an officer
\n        without   corroboration,   but,     equally,   in   the   facts   and
\n        circumstances of another case the Court may unhesitatingly
\n        accept the evidence of such an Officer. It is all a matter of
\n        appreciation of evidence and on such matters there can be no
\n        hard and fast rule, nor can there by any precedential
\n        guidance.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                                    (14)          Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n
23.   In the light of above proposition when we examine the evidence of<\/p>\n
R.K.Shukla (PW5), we find that he requisitioned two officers of Oriental<\/p>\n
Insurance Company as independent trap witnesses though he must have<\/p>\n
knowledge that K.K.Sarin (PW3) had been a witness in about 3-4 raids<\/p>\n
conducted by C.B.I. He stated that the spot map Ex. P\/16 was drawn by<\/p>\n
Inspector Devendra Singh wherein it was mentioned that tainted money of<\/p>\n
Rs. 500\/- was lying on the table, but he did not say that the map was<\/p>\n
wrong. Inspector Devendra Singh was not produced by the prosecution in<\/p>\n
evidence.     The aforesaid spot map was witnessed by K.K.Sarin (PW3)<\/p>\n
and Dr. A.K.Verma (PW4), but none of them pointed out the said mistake.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
On the contrary, Inspector R.K.Shukla (PW5) and K.K.Sarin (PW3) stated<\/p>\n
that the money was recovered from the pocket of appellant and they did<\/p>\n
not know how it was marked in Ex. P\/16 that tainted money was lying on<\/p>\n
the table.   In these circumstances, the evidence of complainant Mohanlal<\/p>\n
(PW6) that appellant kept the money on the table appears probable. It is<\/p>\n
true that the complainant Mohan Lal as well as Ram Kumar Maravi (DW1),<\/p>\n
cashier of the Bank stated that tainted currency notes were seized from<\/p>\n
the table of Maravi, but in view of the inconsistencies appearing in the<\/p>\n
evidence, it becomes suspicious as to where from the money was<\/p>\n
recovered.\n<\/p>\n
24.   In view of the aforesaid infirmities occurring in the prosecution case,<\/p>\n
we are unable to hold that the prosecution succeeded in establishing that<\/p>\n
demand of illegal gratification was made by the appellant and that the
\n                                    (15)         Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997<\/p>\n
appellant accepted tainted money as a bribe\/illegal gratification, and thus<\/p>\n
to prove the guilt of appellant beyond all doubts, in our opinion learned<\/p>\n
Special Judge committed error in holding the appellant guilty.<\/p>\n
25.   After careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
prosecution, the statement of appellant under Section 313 of the Code of<\/p>\n
Criminal Procedure and the submissions made by learned counsel for the<\/p>\n
parties, we are of the view that prosecution has failed to prove guilt of<\/p>\n
appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.\n<\/p>\n
26.   For the reasons aforesaid, appeal is allowed. The order of conviction<\/p>\n
and sentence as passed by the learned Special          Judge is set aside.<\/p>\n
Appellant is acquitted of the charges. His bail bond and personal bond are<\/p>\n
discharged.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
      (RAKESH SAKSENA)                            (M.A.SIDDIQUI)\n          JUDGE                                       JUDGE\n\n\nAD\/\n <\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Madhya Pradesh High Court Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011 (1) Cr. Appeal No. 2239\/1997 HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH AT JABALPUR DIVISION BENCH:HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAKESH SAKSENA HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE M.A.SIDDIQUI CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2239\/1997 APPELLANT: Rajesh Kumar Goswami S\/o R.G.Goswami, aged 37 years, Bank Adhikari, Chhindwara-Seoni Kshetriya […]<\/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-7534","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-high-court","category-madhya-pradesh-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nRajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 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\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-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=\"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2014-06-25T08:21:07+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=\"20 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011\",\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-25T08:21:07+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\"},\"wordCount\":3868,\"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\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\",\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2014-06-25T08:21:07+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 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":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 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\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2014-06-25T08:21:07+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":"20 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011","datePublished":"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-25T08:21:07+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011"},"wordCount":3868,"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\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011","name":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 2011 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2011-07-26T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2014-06-25T08:21:07+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/rajesh-kumar-goswami-vs-the-state-of-m-p-on-27-july-2011#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Rajesh Kumar Goswami vs The State Of M.P on 27 July, 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\/7534","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=7534"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/7534\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=7534"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=7534"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=7534"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}