STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH Vs. JAGDISH SINGH MALHOTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave puts in issue an order of acquittal dated 27th March, 1989 recorded by the High Court of Allahabad in Criminal Appeal No. 2461 of 1984.

(2.) According to the prosecution case, respondent Jagdish Singh Malhotra was posted as Regional Inspector (Technical) in the Office of the Regional Transport Officer, Kathgodam, Nainital, in the year 1981. The prime mover Shri Shyam Sunder, PW-6 is owner of a number of Matador taxis. It is alleged that he wanted to obtain a fitness certificate for his Matador Vehicle No. PJQ-3455 and met the respondent in that connection. The respondent demanded a sum of Rs. 1,000. 00 from him as bribe for giving the fitness certificate.

(3.) It is alleged that PW-6 raised an amount of Rs. 1,000. 00 and made a written complaint to the Vigilance Department, Nainital against the demand of bribe by the respondent. On 14th August, 1981, PW-6, accompanied by Lakhpat Rai PW-5 and Dharam Shiel (not examined) went to the Office of the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) , Nainital, who directed them to meet Inspector B. D. Thapliyal to organise a raid. They followed the advice and met Shri Thapliyal. They produced currency notes of Rs. 1,000. 00 before him, who treated the same with phenolphthalein powder and gave directions about the manner in which the amount should be passed on to the respondent on his demand. Details about the manner of giving signals to the raiding party were also given by him. At about 3.30 P. M. , on the same day, in the presence of Ramesh and Madan Lal, PW-6 went to the office of respondent and on his demand, paid him Rs. 1,000. 00 as bribe, for signing the fitness certificate. The raiding party appeared on the scene on receiving the signal. The respondent was caught hold of and his hands were washed in a solution of sodium carbonate, which turned pink. The fitness certificate was also recovered and a case was lodged against the respondent for offences under Section 5 (1) (d) , read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Indian Penal Code. The trial Court, after examining seven witnesses, including the prime mover. PW-6, recorded an order of conviction against the respondent and sentenced him to undergo two years R. I. for the offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and four years R. I. for the offences under Section 5 (1) (d). read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Both the sentences were. however, directed to run concurrently. The respondent filed an appeal, challenging his conviction and sentence in the High Court. The appeal was allowed and conviction and sentence of the respondent was set aside vide judgment dated 27.3.1989. Hence, this appeal, by special leave, by the State.