1 2025:CGHC:29931 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1089 of 1998 1. (Dead) Kunjram As Per Honble Court Orders Dated 11-02-2008. 2. Abated (Smt. Kamla Devi) As Per Honble Court Orders Dated 13/08/2021. 3. Ravi Kumar S/o Late Shri Kunjram Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Churikala, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. 4. Brajesh Kumar S/o Late Shri Kunjram Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Churikala, Police Station Katghora, District Korba Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus The State of M.P. (Now State of Chhattisgarh). ... Respondent For Applicant : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Jitendra Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 02.07.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 25.04.1998 passed by the Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No. 23/92, whereby & whereunder learned Special Judge, Bilaspur after holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Section ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Digitally signed by ABHISHEK SHRIVAS Date: 2025.07.07 18:56:01 +0530 2 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 1 year & fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, SI for 03 months and Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year & fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of payment of fine, S.I. for 03 months. 2. At the very outset, it is to be mentioned that the appellant Kunju Ram died during the pendency of the present appeal, on account of which his appeal was ordered to be abated by this Court vide order dated 11.02.2008. Thereafter, the appellant’s wife, who was appellant No. 2, along with appellant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased accused/appellant Kunju Ram, moved an application seeking permission to contest the appeal on behalf of her husband and their father, respectively, on the ground that the retiral benefits of late Kunju Ram had been withheld due to the pendency of the present appeal. Hence, they moved an application to contest the appeal after the death of the accused/appellant Kunju Ram. 3. Subsequently, appellant No. 2, namely, Smt. Kamla Devi, wife of appellant Kunju Ram, also died during the pendency of the appeal, and the appeal on her behalf was also ordered to be abated. Now, the appeal survives on behalf of appellant Nos. 3 and 4, who are the sons of the deceased accused/appellant Kunju Ram. Accordingly, the Court now proceeds to hear the present appeal in respect of appellant Nos. 3 and 4. 4. Conviction is challenged on the ground without there being any iota of evidence that the original appellant has demanded and accepted illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, the trial Court has convicted & sentenced him as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3 5. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is on 18.01.1991, the original appellant was serving as Patwari of Gram Nunera, Patwari Halka No. 27. Within this area, a farmer named Tulsingh, resident of Banbadha, had a piece of land measuring 57 decimals of land, jointly registered in the names of his wife and her sister, Asinbai. The complainant wanted to get this land measured and regularised, arranging for the old encroached land to be settled and for a lease to be issued. For this purpose, the complainant contacted the appellant. The accused/appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 3,000/- for this procedure but later agreed to accept a bribe of Rs. 700/- for the same. Under this illegal agreement, the complainant had already paid Rs. 250/- to the accused, and it was decided that the remaining Rs. 400/- would be paid later. However, the complainant did not wish to give the bribe, and therefore, on 18.01.1991, he submitted a written complaint regarding this illegal transaction (Ex. P/5) at the Vigilance Office, Bilaspur. 6. Based on this complaint, a trap was organized, and the trap team successfully caught the accused red-handed with the bribe money. 7. During the investigation of this incident, based on the complainant’s complaint (Ex. P/-5), government panch witnesses were summoned at the Vigilance Office, Bilaspur. The complainant’s complaint was verified by A.S. Chandel, Superintendent, Land Records, and DSP, Special Police Establishment, Bilaspur, under whose supervision a demonstration with sodium carbonate and phenolphthalein powder was conducted in the Vigilance Office. When phenolphthalein powder is mixed in a colourless solution of sodium carbonate, it turns light pink. A preliminary report (Ex. P/6) was prepared in this regard. The 4 serial numbers of the four Rs. 100/- currency notes provided by the complainant were recorded in the preliminary panchanama. Phenolphthalein powder was applied to Rs. 400/- bribe money, instructions were provided to the complainant and the notes were placed in his pocket. 8. On 18.01.1991, the trap team proceeded to the scene of the incident. At around 4:40 PM, the trap team apprehended the accused with the bribe money. A trap panchanama (Ex. P-9) was prepared in this regard. The bribe money of Rs. 400/- and an additional Rs. 70/-, which was already in the accused’s pocket, were seized, and a seizure memo (Ex.P/7) was prepared. Documents related to the complainant were also seized, and a seizure memo (Ex. P/8) was prepared. 9. At the scene, the hands of the relevant persons and the concerned objects were washed in the colourless sodium carbonate solution, which turned pink, and the solutions were sealed in glass bottles and duly seized. An unnumbered report regarding this incident was sent to the Special Police Establishment Office, Bhopal, for registration. The Special Police Establishment, Bhopal, registered the First Information Report (Ex. P/12) under Crime No. 16/91 based on this, and prosecution sanction (Ex. P/4) was obtained. During the investigation, a site map (Ex. P/15) of the incident location was prepared. Statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. of prosecution witnesses Tulsingh, Umed Singh, Asinbai, A.S. Chandel, R.D. Diwan, R.J. Toppo, and B.L. Dhurve were recorded. Documents proving the accused’s status as a public servant (Ex.P/19) were seized. The seized items and sealed bottles containing the solutions were sent for examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory via memo (Ex. P/16), 5 and the FSL report (Ex. P/17) was received. The investigation established the accused’s involvement in committing the crime, and therefore, a charge-sheet was presented before the Special Court for trial. 10. In order to prove the guilt of the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as ten witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication in the crime in question. Upon the charges being read out and explained to the accused at the stage mentioned in Part 1 of the judgment, the accused denied having committed the offence. His defence was that he had been falsely implicated in this incident. He also claimed that the trap team did not seize any bribe money from him, that he had not demanded any bribe, and he had not received any bribe amount from the complainant. The accused contended that he had asked the complainant to vacate the unauthorised possession of government land and due to this, the complainant, being displeased, falsely implicated him in this matter. The accused did not present any evidence in his defence. 11. After providing opportunity of hearing to the parties, the learned Special Judge, Bilaspur, in Special Criminal Case No. 23/92 convicted the appellant as aforementioned. 12. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that complainant Tul Singh was not examined, as he died during the trial. Learned trial Court failed to see that the evidence against the appellant is purely hearsay, which is not admissible. He submits that the trial Court failed to consider that the 6 appellant neither demanded any illegal gratification nor demanded any money; therefore, no offence is made out against him. Learned trial Court failed to see that condoning encroachment and granting lease and Bhumiswami rights can only be done by the Tahsildar, and a Patwari has no authority in this regard; therefore, there was no occasion for giving any bribe to the appellant. He further submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that there was no legal and valid sanction for prosecution. Even otherwise, no material was placed before the sanctioning authority on which it could have applied its mind. The sanction, if any, was mechanical and without application of mind; therefore, the prosecution itself is vitiated. The statements of the prosecution witnesses are full of contradictions, omissions, and improvements, and therefore, ought to have been disbelieved. The trial Court failed to consider that no independent witness has supported the prosecution case. He also submits that the entire procedure of using phenolphthalein powder and sodium carbonate is illegal. The use of the powder, washing of the hands of the witnesses and the accused, and the washing of the currency notes and the pocket resulting in the colourless liquid turning pink are suspicious and doubtful, and prove nothing. The trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-10, Hemant Khare, Investigating Officer, admitted that neither the shirt of the accused was seized nor was its pocket washed. He submits that the trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-9, A.S. Chandel, Superintendent (Land Records), stated that the Investigating Officer and other persons entered the office of the Patwari/accused and trapped him there, whereas PW-8, R.D. Diwan, Dy. Superintendent of Police, stated that the accused was trapped outside 7 the office. This inconsistency renders the prosecution story highly doubtful. The trial Court failed to see that there was neither any demand for a bribe nor its acceptance, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to acquittal. The trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution failed to prove how many currency notes were recovered, what the total amount demanded was, and what amount was actually paid. It ought to have been held that the prosecution failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 13. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, in which no interference is called for. 14. I have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court. 15. In order to prove the sanction, the prosecution has examined Additional Tehsildar A.K. Agrawal (P.W.-3), he stated that he served as Additional Tehsildar at Pali Tehsil from 1990 to July 1993 and the accused was working under him during this period. He explained that the process through which an encroacher on government land can obtain ownership rights is known as the ‘Vyavasthapan’ (regularisation) process. Applications for Vyavasthapan must be submitted to the Tehsildar in the prescribed forms for the respective area. Upon submission of the application, the Tehsildar, either personally or through the Naib Tehsildar under him, conducts an inquiry, following which the lease is issued in accordance with government rules. An application in this regard is not submitted to the Patwari. However, due to a lack of knowledge, villagers often approach the Patwari to fill out these forms. The prosecution declared this witness as hostile. During cross-examination, the witness 8 admitted that the Patwari does not have the authority to conduct inquiries in matters related to Vyavasthapan, but the Tehsildar may call for a report from the Patwari regarding the same. 16. Although A.K. Agrawal (P.W.-3) was declared hostile by the prosecution, merely declaring a witness hostile does not render his testimony inadmissible. Even from the testimony of a hostile witness, statements that are reliable and trustworthy can be accepted. The procedure of Vyavasthapan described by this witness can be relied upon. In this context, reference may be made to the judgments in Syed Akbar vs. State of Karnataka, AIR 1979 SC 1848 and Motilal vs. State of M.P., 1996 (1) MP Weakly Note 148. 17. From the testimony of A.K. Agrawal (P.W.-3), Additional Tehsildar, it is clear that while the process of Vyavasthapan falls under the official duties of the Tehsildar, this witness also stated that due to a lack of knowledge, villagers often approach the Patwari to fill out the prescribed application forms for Vyavasthapan, and in this process, the Tehsildar calls for a report from the Patwari. 18. Hemant Khare (P.W.-10), Vigilance Inspector, stated under oath that during the trap proceedings, he seized the application (Ex.P/13) and the Khasra Panchsala (Ex.P/14) from the possession of the accused and prepared the seizure memo (Ex.P/8), which was signed accordingly. The accused admitted to this procedure during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Although during cross- examination, Hemant Khare’s testimony was challenged on the point that Asinbai’s thumb impression on the blank application form (Ex. P/13) was taken later, it is notable that no reliable documentary basis was found to support this challenge. The accused also did not clarify 9 during his examination that Asinbai’s thumb impression was not present on the document at the time of its seizure and that the trap team later obtained her thumb impression to fabricate evidence. 19. During the investigation, it was found that on the date of the incident, 18.01.1991, the document related to the Vyavasthapan process (Ex.P/13) bearing Asinbai’s thumb impression was seized from the possession of the accused, which makes it clear that the accused had demanded illegal gratification from the complainant in connection with this procedure. The testimony of A.K. Agrawal (P.W.-3), Additional Tehsildar, further proves that due to a lack of awareness, villagers approach the Patwari to fill out such applications and that in this process, the Tehsildar calls for a report from the Patwari. Hence, under the entire set of circumstances, it is concluded that a part of the Vyavasthapan process falls within the official duties of the Patwari. In this context, the accused demanded illegal gratification from a poor, illiterate villager who lacked knowledge of the procedure. 20. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, and further the fact that the present appeal has been preferred by the legal heirs of deceased, Kunjram, it is argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that although the trial Court has convicted the appellant, it failed to examine the complainant in the case. Hence, it is contended that the conviction and sentence of the appellant by the trial Court are liable to be set aside. 21. From the perusal of the record, it appears that the deceased appellant was caught red-handed while accepting a bribe of Rs. 400/-. As regards the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant was not examined by the trial Court, the 10 learned State Counsel has submitted in reply that the complainant had died during the pendency of the case and, therefore, could not be examined. Moreover, the deceased appellant did not take any defence of false implication in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The other evidence on record demonstrates that a trap was laid, and the procedure established for conducting the trap was not found to be faulty by the trial Court. Hence, the trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for 03 months. Further, under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the appellant was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo simple imprisonment for three months. 22. For the foregoing reasons, I do not find any merit in this appeal. The appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed and it is hereby dismissed. Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Abhishek