STATE OF MAHARASHTRA Vs. JAGATSING CHARASING ARORA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by special leave against the judgment of the Bombay High Court by which the two respondents were acquitted. The prosecution case briefly was that one Dongarsing, a discharged truck driver from the army, was in need of employment. Towards the end of October 1955 he made an application to the District Soldiers' Board Dhulia praying for help in securing employment. This application was forwarded to the Divisional Controller of the State Transport Corporation at Dhullia and Dongarsing was asked by the Corporation to make a formal application on a printed form to be obtained on payment of As. -/2/-. Accordingly Dongarsing applied for a printed form sometime in November 1955 which he received on November 19, 1955. Thereafter Dongarsing met Sheikh Ahmed (respondent No. 2) who was service in the said department at Jamner and asked him for help. Sheikh Ahmed told Dongarsing that Jagatsing (respondent No. 1) who was an officer in the State Transport Corporation at Dhulia would be able to secure a job for Dongarsing provided he was paid money. Consequently, Dongarsing went to Dhulia along with Sheikh Ahmed and met Jagatsing and it was settled that Dongarsing would pay Rs. 50/- as bribe to Jagatsing for securing the job of a driver. Rs. 25/- were immediately paid on that very day namely November 25, 1955 and the remaining amount Rs. 25/- was paid a fortnight later about December 9, 1955. Dongarsing was informed sometime at the end of January or beginning of February 1956 that his application for the post of driver had been rejected. He then went to Jagatsing again and asked him to return the sum of Rs. 50/- already paid or secure the job for him. Jagatsingh replied that he could not return the money as it had already been paid to other persons but said that if he paid another Rs. 50/- Jagatsing might be able to procure the job for him. So another printed form of application was procured by Jagatsing and Dongarsing filled it up and gave it to Jagatsing. By this time however Dongarsing had become suspicious of the bona fides of Jagatsing and he therefore approached the Anticorruption Department. So a trap was laid for catching Jagatsing and Rs. 30/- currency notes were given to Dongarsing for passing on to Jagatsing after applying anthracene powder to them. Eventually on February 20, 1956, this amount of Rs. 30/- was passed on by Dongarsing to Jagatsing at about 3 p.m. After the money was paid the police caught Jagatsing who had the money in his hands but threw it down on being challenged. It was however found that particles of anthracene powder were on the thumb and two fingers of Jagatsing and also on the seam of the right pocket of the pant of his trousers. The currency notes were then picked up and the necessary panchnama was prepared and after further investigation Jagatsingh and Sheikh Ahmed were prosecuted.

(2.) Jagatsing denied his guilt and said that he had nothing to do with the appointment of drivers and conductors and were never in a position to do anything for Dongarsing. Sheikh Ahmed also denied his guilty and said that all that he did was to help Dongarsing in filling up the printed form but that he never told Dongarsing that he had to pay a bribe to Jagatsing in order to get the job.

(3.) The trial Court found on the facts that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that Jagatsing had accepted the currency notes which Dongarsing gave him on February 20 as illegal gratification as a motive for securing the job for Dongarsing. As to Sheikh Ahmed the trial Court held that it would not be safe to accept the testimony of Dongarsing as to the payment of the two sums of money of Rs. 25/- in November and December 1955 as he was an accomplice. As to the payment of Rs. 30/- on February 20 the trial Court held that Sheikh Ahmed was not present at that time and could not be held to be guilty of abetment of that crime, particularly as the letter Ex. 29/- on which the charge of abetment was based was never handed over by Dongarsing to Jagatsing. The trial Court further held as to Jagatsing that he was not a public servant within the meaning of S. 43 of the Road Transport Corporation Act, No. 64 of 1950 (hereinafter referred to as the Transport Act). It therefore acquitted both the respondents.