INDRA VIJAY ALOK versus STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [2015] 10 S.C.R. 288 · Decided: 31-08-2015 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: RANJAN GOGOI · Disposal: Dismissed
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A 
B 
[2015] 10 S.C.R. 288 
INDRA VIJAY ALOK 
v. 
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
(Criminal Appeal No. 1917 of2008) 
AUGUST 31, 2015 
[RANJAN GOGOi AND PRAFULLA C. PANT, JJ.] 
Prevention of Coffuption Act, 1988: ss. 7 and 13(1 )(d) rlw 
c s. 13(2) - Allegation that appellant-Patwari demanded from 
the complainant bribe for carrying out the mutation in the 
revenue records -
Trial Court found the evidence of 
complainant (PW-3) and statements of other prosecution 
witnesses reliable for holding the appellant guilty- Conviction 
D by trial court upheld by the High Court - On appeal, held: 
E 
The statement of PW-3 got corroboration by the statement 
of the superior officer of the appellant's own department-As 
such courts below committed no error of law in relying on 
testimony of these witnesses and in convicting the appellant. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
Held: 1. The statement of PW-3 (complainant) gets 
corroborated by the statement of PW-4 (Deputy 
F Superintendent of Police), as well as by PW-2 Deputy 
Collector who is superior officer of the appellant's own 
department. As such the courts below have committed 
· no error of law in relying on the testimony of above three 
witnesses as trustworthy, against the statement of DW-
G · 6, who appears to have been won over by the defence. 
H 
Merely for the reason that DW-6 has not supported 
prosecution case, the ring of truth in the prosecution 
case is not shaken in the present case, particularly, when 
the statements of remaining witnesses are credible and 
288 
INDRA VIJAY ALOt< v. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 289 
trustworthy. [Para 10] [292-H; 293-A-B] 
A 
2. The Investigating Officer was not examined by the 
prosecution. This has no legs for the reason that it has 
come on the record that the Investigating Officer had died 
when the prosecution evidence was recorded. [Para 11] B 
[293-C] 
3. PW-3 has clearly stated that initial demand of 
Rs.1900/- was made to his mother, who paid Rs.900/- to 
the appellant, but when he came back to his village, his c 
mother told him that further Rs.1000/- was required to 
be arranged. PW-3 further told the court that on this, he 
himself went to the appellant and requested not to 
demand further money, but he (appellant) did not relent. 
The trap was laid, and the amount of Rs.1000/-was given D 
by him to the appellant and recovered from him 
(appellant). Even otherwise, presumption can be drawn 
under Section 20 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 
1988, regarding the motive of receiving the gratification 
unless it is rebutted. In the present case, the presumption E 
does not stand rebutted. [Para 12] [293-E-H; 294-A] 
CRIMINALAPPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal 
No. 1917 of2008. 
From the Judgment and Order dated 31.08.2007 of the F 
High Court of Judicature Madhya Pradesh at Jabalpur, Gwalior 
Bench Gwalior in Criminal Appeal No. 102 of2000 . 
.. 
Rajendra Sahu, Hema Sahu, C. L. Sahu for the Appellant. 
Shreya Bhatnagar, Bansuri Swaraj, C. D. Singh for the 
Respondent. 
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by 
G 
PRAFULLA C. PANT, J. 1. This appeal is directed against H 
290 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
(2015] 10 S.C.R.. 
A judgment and order dated 31.8.2007, passed by the High Court 
of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur (Gwalior Bench), whereby said 
Court has dismissed Criminal Appeal No. 102 of 2000, and 
affirmed conviction and sentence recorded against accused 
Indra Vijay Alok under Sections 7 and 13(1 )(d) read with 
B Section 13(2) of Prevention and Corruption Act, 1988 by the 
Special Judge, Datiya, in Special Case No. 1 of 1992. 
c 
2. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 
perused the papers on record. 
3. Prosecution story, in brief, is that a piece of land in 
Badoni Khurd was in the name of one Sadri, younger brother· 
of PW-3 Ram Singh (complainant). Appellant Indra Vijay Alok 
was the Patwari of Halka area during the relevant period, i.e. 
D in 1987. After death of Sadri, complainant and his mother 
Bhagobai sought mutation of their names in the revenue record. 
When Bhagobai, mother of the complainant, met the appellant 
in this connection, he demanded Rs. 1900/- out of which she 
paid Rs. 900/-. When Complainant (PW-3) came to his village, 
E his mother told him about the demand made by the appellant. 
On this, on 18.05.1987 he (PW-3) himself met the appellant, 
who clearly told him that unless further Rs.1000/- is paid to 
him, the mutation would not be done. This compelled PW-3 
Ram Singh (complainant)
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.