# Sunil Chaudhary v. State of U.P

- **Citation:** (2021) 11 ILRA 781
- **Court:** High Court of Judicature at Allahabad
- **Decided:** 2021-09-22
- **Case number:** Criminal Appeal No. 3691 of 2018
- **Bench:** Ajai Tyagi
- **Source:** https://unisonlegal.in/judgment/allahabad-high-court/sunil-chaudhary-v-state-of-u-p-46702
- **Pages:** 6

## Headnote

A.G.A.

Appellant was Lekhpal-demanded bribe-complaint
made in office of Anti Corruption-pre trap exercise
was conducted-caught red handed-Demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence
under the Act-voluntarily acceptance to be proved
beyond doubt-proved.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

## Text

11 All. Sunil Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
781

"The plea of alibi succeeded only if it
is shown that the accused was so far away at the
relevant time that he could not be present at the
place where the crime was committed. Distance
thus would be material factor in the matter of
acceptability of plea of alibi."

33. In the present case the accused-appellant
was present in the adjoining village and it was not
such a great distance that it would be impossible
for the accused-appellant to be absent at the place
of occurrence when the incident took place. In
these circumstances, the testimonies of DW1 and
DW2 do not inspire confidence as the testimony of
PW1 the victim has undoubtedly established the
incident which also finds corroboration from the
medical evidence as well as testimony of PW2.

In the statement recorded under Section
313 Cr.P.C, accused-appellant had taken plea that
to grab his land, one Rajeev Yadav, Corporator in
collusion with the informant has falsely implicated
him in the present case but the details of such
property had not been given by the accusedappellant. So in the absence of any proof of
hostility between the parties, it would be very
difficult to believe that accused-appellant has been
falsely implicated in the present case.

34. In view of the above discussions, I am
impressed to hold that victim was violated by the
accused-appellant in the field which she not only
narrated to her parents but also disclosed the same
before the Court below. The evidence tendered by
the victim that she was sexually assaulted by the
accused has been corroborated by the evidence
tendered by the doctor. I have, therefore, no doubt
that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all
reasonable doubts. The trial Court has considered
all the probable aspects of the case after critically
evaluating the evidence adduced in this case. I find
sufficient reason to uphold the conviction of the
appellant.

35. The appeal lacks merit and is
accordingly dismissed.

36. The impugned judgement/order dated
04.05.2016 of the trial court is hereby
confirmed.

37. Let a certified copy of the judgement/
order along with lower court record be sent to
the court concerned for necessary compliance.
----------
(2021)12ILR A781
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 22.09.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 3691 of 2018

Sunil Chaudhary ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent

Counsel for the Appellant:
Sri J.P. Pandey, Sri Harshit Pandey, Sri Munna
Pandey, Sri Rakesh Chandra Upadhyay, Sri
Aishwarya Pratap Singh

Counsel for the Respondent:
A.G.A.

Appellant was Lekhpal-demanded bribe-complaint
made in office of Anti Corruption-pre trap exercise
was conducted-caught red handed-Demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence
under the Act-voluntarily acceptance to be proved
beyond doubt-proved.

Appeal dismissed. (E-9)

List of Cases cited:

1. B.Jayaraj Vs St. of A.P. [2014 SC (supp.) 1837]

2. C.M.Girish Babu Vs CBI Cochin, 2009 (3) SCC 779
782 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
3. Surajmal Vs State (Delhi Administration) 1979 (4)
SCC 725
(Delivered by Hon'ble Ajai Tyagi, J.)

1. This appeal has been preferred against
the impugned judgment and order dated
3.7.2018, passed by Special Judge, AntiCorruption/Additional Sessions Judge, Meerut,
in Criminal Case No.08 of 2013 (State vs. Sunil
Chaudhary) arising out of Case Crime No.1146
of 2013, under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with
Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption
Act, 1988 (herein after referred to as 'the Act,
1988'), Police Station-Loni, District-Ghaziabad,
by which the appellant was convicted and
sentenced for a period of four years and fine of
Rs.15,000/- under Section 7 of the Act, 1988 and
for a period of five years and Rs.15,000/- fine
under Section 13(2) of the Act, 1988 with
imprisonment in default of fine. All the
sentences were directed to run concurrently.

2. Brief facts of this case are that on
6.6.2013, a case was registered against the
appellant-Sunil Chaudhary on the basis of first
information report (Ex.ka10), according to
which, the appellant was lekhpal and posted in
Tehsil-Loni, District-Ghaziabad as a public
servant. One Sonepal had applied through an
application for measurement of his land and the
said application was given to concerned Sub
Divisional
Magistrate.
On
4.6.2013,
complainant-Pramod
Sharma
submitted
an
application in the office of Anti-corruption,
Meerut, stating that his cousin-Sonepal had
moved an application to SDM for measuring his
land. That application was sent to lekhpal-Sunil
Chaudhary. On 3.5.2013, he met with lekhpal,
but he demanded Rs.50,000/- as bribe for
measurement of the land. Again on 1.6.2013, he
met with lekhpal, but he told that he will not
make the measurement unless he has given
Rs.50,000/-. After bargaining, lekhpal was ready
to take Rs.30,000/- as bribe and said that he
should talk to him on 6.6.2013. It is said in first
information report that complainant did not want
to give the bribe, but wanted that lekhpal should
be caught red-handed. After recording the
statement
of
complainant,
Inspector
G.S.Chauhan was directed to conduct pre-trap
exercise. Shri Chauhan submitted report that
general reputation of lekhpal is of a corrupt
public servant. Team for trap was organized and
District Magistrate, Ghaziabad, was contacted to
make two independent witnesses available.
District Magistrate nominated Shri Raj Singh
Yadav, DIOS Ghaziabad, and directed that he
should take one of his subordinates with him as
witness. Shri Raj Singh Yadav took Shri Tasleen
with him from the office of DIOS. Trap-team led
by Deputy S.P.-Ravindra Pal Singh Tomar, went
to the place of occurrence where complainant
met with the team. Complainant handed over
Rs.30,000/-, consisting of 60 notes of Rs.500/-
to D.S.P., who noted the numbers of currency
notes. Constable Anand Swaroop applied
chemical powder on the notes. After that above
notes were handed over to the complainant with
the direction that these notes will be given to the
lekhpal on his demand. Hands of constable
Anand Swaroop and the complainant were made
to wash separately in the liquid of sodiumcarbonate and the colour of water turned pink,
which was filled in separate bottles and sealed.

3. It was told by the complainant that
lekhpal has called him at about 01:00 p.m. in
front of Abhinandan Vatika, trap-teem took the
position near Abhinandan Vatika. At about 1:15
p.m., he came there in Swift Car bearing
No.UP14BR1105. Complainant reached to the
lekhpal and asked him to conduct the
measurement of his land. Lekhpal demanded
Rs.30,000/-
as
bribe
as
decided
earlier.
Complainant handed over the notes, which were
treated with the chemical. Trap-team surrounded
lekhpal at once. Lekhpal tried to flee away, but
he was caught 15 steps away from the car at
about 1:30 p.m. and treated 60 notes of Rs.500/-
11 All. Sunil Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
783
were recovered from his right hand. On the basis
of above report, Case Crime No.1146 of 2013
was registered against the appellant.

4. Report was received from Forensic
Science Laboratory, Agra, according to which in
the sample liquid contained in bottles, sent for
chemical examination, sodium-carbonate and
phenolphthalein was found. This report is
Ex.ka16
on
record.
After
investigation,
Investigating Officer submitted charge-sheet
against the appellant-lekhpal under Section 7/13
(1) d and 13 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act,
1988.

5. Learned trial court framed charges
against the appellant under Section 7 of the
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 and Section
13(1) d and 13(2) of the Prevention of
Corruption Act, 1988. Learned trial court, after
conclusion of trial, convicted the appellant for
the aforesaid charges and sentenced as stated
earlier. Hence, this appeal.

6. Heard Shri Aishwarya Pratap Singh,
learned Advocate, assisted by Shri Munna
Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, Shri
S.S.Sachan, learned AGA appearing on behalf of
State and perused the record.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant
submitted that appellant has been falsely
implicated in this case by the complainant due to
annoyance. The work of measuring the land was
not in the work-domain of the appellant. He has
revealed this fact in writing to his superior
officers. He further argued that the work of
measurement of land was to be conducted by a
three-member committee and not by lekhpal
alone.
Therefore,
when
the
work
of
measurement was not in work-domain of the
appellant, there was no question for demanding
any bribe. He further submitted that prosecution
has failed to prove that any demand of bribe was
made by the appellant. It is also submitted that
prosecution witnesses have given contradictory
statements regarding the dates of demand. It is
next argued by counsel for the appellant that
story of trapping was narrated by prosecution
witnesses, but it is also contrary to the
statements of each other. Manner of arrest on the
spot is also told differently by prosecution
witnesses. Learned counsel contended that in
fact, appellant refused for measurement of land
because it was not within his work-domain and
due to that reason, complainant misunderstood
that appellant is in connivance with the other
party. Hence, complainant falsely implicated the
appellant.

8. Per contra, learned AGA submitted that
all the witnesses of fact have supported the
prosecution case. Minor discrepancies in the
statements of witnesses are bound to occur when
statements were recorded after a lapse of time,
but overall story is the same. It is also submitted
that recovery of Rs.30,000/- treated notes was
made from the possession of the appellant,
which is not a small amount. It is next submitted
that Mahaveer Prasad (PW6), Revenue Inspector
at the time of occurrence, has proved that the
application of complainant's brother, namely,
Sonepal was sent to appellant-lekhpal in writing.
Therefore, it is proved that work had to be
conducted by the appellant only. Therefore,
there was no question of false implication.
Moreover, laboratory report has also supported
the prosecution case. As far as demand is
concerned, it is a matter between two persons.
Learned trial court has rightly convicted and
sentenced the appellant. Hence, the appeal is
liable to be dismissed.

9. First of all, learned counsel for the
appellant has raised the argument with regard to
the demand of bribe. It is stated by learned
counsel for the appellant that it was a matter of
measurement of land of complainant's brother,
but this work was not in the domain of appellant.
A three-members committee does this work and
784 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
complainant's land was also measured by
forming a three-members committee. PW1 has
categorically stated that SDM formed the
committee consisting of Ayub Khan (Lekhpal),
Rakesh
Sharma
(Lekhpal)
and
Mahaveer
(Kanoongo), which recorded their statements
also. Therefore, it is very much natural when the
work of measurement was not to be conducted
by the appellant, there was no question of
demand of bribe.

10. It is also submitted by learned counsel
for the appellant that prosecution witnesses have
failed to establish the date of aforesaid demand.
In this regard, PW1-complainant Pramod
Sharma has stated in his statement that he met
with appellant in connection with measurement
of land for the very first time in May, 2013, but
he could not tell that before or after how many
days of date 15th of the month, he met with the
appellant. In his examination-in-chief, the
complainant-Pramod Sharma (PW1) has said
that he met with appellant on 1.6.2013 while in
cross-examination, he said that he met with him
in the month of May, 2013. Learned counsel
also submitted that complainant has also said in
his statement that he did not meet with any
person of anti-corruption department between
1.6.2013 and 6.6.2013 while Ravindra Pal Singh
Tomar (PW2), the then Deputy S.P. of AntiCorruption
Department
has
said
that
complainant met him on 4.6.2013. In this way,
prosecution has measurably failed to establish
and prove the factum of demand of bribe by the
appellant and when demand is not there,
prosecution case does not stand anywhere.

11. Learned counsel submitted a legal
argument that demand is sine qua non to
constitute the offence under the provisions of
Prevention of Corruption Act. Learned counsel
referred the case law of B.Jayaraj vs. State of
A.P. [2014 SC (supp.) 1837] and submitted that
it is held by Hon'ble Apex Court that insofar as
the offence under Section 7 is concerned, it is
settled position of law that demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the
said offence and mere recovery of currency
notes cannot constitute the offence under
Section 7 of the Act unless it is proved beyond
all reasonable doubt that the accused voluntarily
accepted the money knowing it to be a bribe.

12. Learned counsel argued that since
demand is sine qua non to constitute the offence,
in the absence of demand, no case is made out
against the appellant and learned trial court
convicted and sentenced the appellant without
sufficient evidence and without the ingredients
of the offence.

13. Learned counsel for the appellant
argued that from the prosecution evidence at the
worst case, it can be said that currency-notes
were recovered from the appellant, but this alone
does not constitute the offence. To bring home
the charges levelled against the appellant, the
prosecution is required to prove beyond
reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant had
demanded the illegal gratification and accepted
the same voluntarily. This argument of learned
counsel for the appellant is legally correct.
Kerala High Court in C.M.Girish Babu vs. CBI
Cochin, 2009 (3) SCC 779 has also upheld this
view.
In
Surajmal
vs.
State
(Delhi
Administration) 1979 (4) SCC 725, Hon'ble
Apex Court held that mere recovery of tainted
money divorced from the circumstances under
which it is paid not sufficient to convict the
accused when the substantive evidence in the
case is not reliable. The mere recovery by itself
cannot prove the charge of the prosecution
against the accused, in the absence of any
evidence to prove payment of bribe or to show
that the accused voluntarily accepted the money
knowing it to be bribe.

14. In this regard, the statement of PW6 is
very important. PW6 was posted as Revenue
Inspector, Tehsil-Loni, District-Ghaziabad, in the
11 All. Sunil Chaudhary Vs. State of U.P.
785
month of May, 2013, who has stated in his
statement that the Paper No.8ka/2, the application
of Sonepal, which was received by him from
Hanuman
Prasad
Maurya
(Tehsildar)
in
connection with measurement of the land. He has
also stated that he had sent this application to the
appellant-Sunil Chaudhary on 8.5.2013 through
dak-bahi and lekhpal-Sunil Chaudhari put his
signature by receiving this application in dak-bahi
at serial No.486. Although, it is in the evidence of
SDM (PW8) that he formed a committee of threemembers subsequently for measurement of the
land yet the statement of PW6 cannot be
overlooked for the purpose of application moved
for measurement was handed over to appellant to
get the work done, therefore, occasion arose for
appellant to raise the demand of greasing the palm.
Thus, the contention of counsel for the appellant
that particular work for which the bribe was
demanded, was not in work-domain of the
appellant does not exist. As far as, the argument
regarding the discrepancies in the dates of demand
is concerned, these minor discrepancies do not
make the issue of demanding the bribe
unbelievable because it is a general phenomenon
of human memory that one cannot repeat the
things in mechanical manner. It does not make any
difference if the PW1 could not ascertain the exact
date of demand of bribe whether it was in the
month of May, 2013 or on the date of 1st June,
2013 because the crux of the matter is that
complainant (PW1) categorically stated that
demand was raised by the appellant and in his
cross-examination also nothing is extracted which
proves fatal regarding the issue of demand.
Evidence of a witness should be seen and
considered in its entirety and not in piecemeal. In
my considered opinion, the evidence of PW6
corroborates the evidence of complainant-PW1,
who is public servant and it is established that
appellant had reason to make the demand, which is
positively stated by PW1 that it was raised.

15. It is also argued by counsel for the
appellant that application moved for measurement
of land was given by Sonepal, who is cousin of
complainant, but entire exercise of trapping was
carried out at the behest of complainant and Sonepal
was not even produced in evidence while he was the
prime witness. In this regard, it is in the evidence of
PW1 that he had purchased some land from Sonepal
so he had interest in measurment of the land
because the erstwhile purchaser of the portion of
land from Sonepal had encroached the land due to
which application for measurement was given to the
concerned SDM.

16. It is next argued on behalf of appellant that
prosecution witnesses have failed to corroborate
each-other's statement regarding the scene of crime
and arrest of the appellant. In this regard, it is
submitted that PW1 does not say in his statement
that he sat inside the car of the appellant at the time
of transaction of money, but PW2 says that the
complainant sat inside the car. Moreover, PW1 has
categorically stated that at that time A.C. of the car
was on, but PW2 has said that at that time, glasses
(windows) of car were open. If it was so then this
statement of PW1 falsifies that A.C. of the car was
on. These contradictory statements show that
nothing had happened there. There are two versions
of the same story. It is also submitted that Raj Singh
Yadav (PW4), who is said to be an independent
witness, has specifically stated in his statement that
he could not hear the conversation between the
complainant and the appellant. Hence, it is clear
from the aforesaid statement of PW4 that no person
was in a position to hear the conversation between
them and in this situation, it cannot be said by
prosecution that the appellant made any demand
from the complainant and complainant gave any
money to the appellant.

17. Learned counsel for the appellant also
submitted that as per site-plan and even on the
basis of statements of witnesses, place of
occurrence is almost in front of Police StationLoni. Hence, it is not possible for any person to
fix the place for taking the bribe in front of any
police station. Moreover, the place of occurrence
786 INDIAN LAW REPORTS ALLAHABAD SERIES
is not established by prosecution because if it
was in front of police station then no police
personnel came on the spot and no police
personnel of that police station was produced in
evidence as it is not in evidence that any police
personnel came out from police station when
such type of trapping was led by the team. If it
was the place of occurrence, it is very busy
place, but no public witness is there.

18. These arguments regarding place of
occurrence do not convince this Court as it is in
evidence of witnesses that police station was 150200 steps away from the place of occurrence and
moreover, when trap-team set the trap, it was not
necessary for police personnel to come on the spot
because it is not the prosecution case that team
contacted or informed the said police station prior to
setting the trap.

19. Now, it comes the question of voluntary
acceptance of bribe by the appellant. In this regard,
perusal of first information report (Ex.ka10) itself
shows that it is mentioned in this report that when
trap-team caught the appellant then treated 60 notes
of Rs.500/- were recovered from his right-hand.
Ravindra Pal Singh Tomar (PW2), the then DSP,
has also stated in his statement that from his righthand, Rs.30,000/- were recovered and these were
the same notes, which were treated before laying the
trap. Hence, when treated-notes were recovered
from the hand of the appellant and that too 15-20
steps away from his car then it is itself proved that
he accepted the money voluntarily.

20. Recovery of Rs.30,000/- from the
possession of appellant at the place of occurrence is
not at all doubted. There is ample evidence on
record that at the time of apprehending the
appellant, the amount of Rs.30,000/- was recovered
from his right-hand and these were the same
currency-notes, which were treated before giving to
him as a bribe. Report received from Forensic
Science Laboratory, Agra (Ex.ka.16) states that in
the sample of liquid sent for chemical examination,
sodium-carbonate was found. This liquid was result
of washing the hands of appellant and due to
application of powder on currency-notes, which
were to be given as bribe. Demand of illegal
gratification is sine qua non to constitute the offence
under the Act. Mere recovery of currency-notes also
itself does not constitute the offence under the Act,
1988, unless it is proved beyond all reasonable
doubt that the accused-appellant voluntarily
accepted the money, knowing it to be bribe. But, in
the facts of the present case, I am of the opinion that
both the above ingredients of offence under
Sections 7 and 13 (1) (d) (ii) of the Act, 1988, are
completely satisfied and proved as discussed above.

21. With the above discussion, this Court
comes to the conclusion that in this case demand of
illegal gratification on the part of the appellant is
proved and it is also proved that he accepted it,
voluntarily. It is also proved that at the time of
apprehending him, the same treated-notes worth
Rs.30,000/- were recovered from his right hand.

22. Hence, the learned trial court has rightly
appreciated the evidence on record. There is no
infirmity or illegality in the impugned judgment.
The appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be
dismissed.

23. The appeal is dismissed, accordingly.
----------
(2021)12ILR A786
APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL SIDE
DATED: ALLAHABAD 30.11.2021

BEFORE

THE HON'BLE DR. KAUSHAL JAYENDRA
THAKER, J.
THE HON'BLE AJAI TYAGI, J.

Criminal Appeal No. 7187 of 2017

Sunil Kumar Divakar ...Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. ...Respondent