STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. TARACHAND JAIN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Tarachand Jain respondent was convicted by Special Judge Balotra for an offence under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and vies sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000, or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of six months. On appeal the Rajasthan High Court set aside the conviction of the respondent on the ground that no valid sanction for his prosecution had been proved. All the proceedings against the respondent were quashed and the whole trial was held to be null and void for want of valid sanction. It was, however, made clear that the order of the High Court would not bar a subsequent trial of the respondent on the basis of a valid and prior sanction if the State was so advised to take that course. The present appeal has been filed in this Court by the State of Rajasthan on certificate of fitness granted by the High Court against its above judgment.

(2.) The respondent was a member of Rajasthan Administrative Service and was posted at the material time as Sub-Divisional Magistrate Barmer. It is alleged that between November 1959 and March 1960 the respondent accepted illegal gratification from various parties to the cases which were pending before him on the pretext of showing undue favour to them. One Hazi Ali Mohammed was an accused in a passport case pending before the respondent. Hazi Ali Mohammed made a complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jodhpur on March 30, 1960 that the respondent had made a demand of bribe from him. A trap was accordingly laid during the course of which the respondent was stated to have accepted an amount of Rs. 500 in marked currency notes as bribe. Those currency notes were thereafter recovered from the possession of the respondent. During the course of investigation, a further sum of Rs. 11,450 which was lying concealed in the respondent's house was also recovered. The respondent had a bank balance of Rs. 5,534. 68 and he used to deposit a major part of his salary every month in the bank. The respondent was put up for trial on the above allegations for offences under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act after sanction for his prosecution had been obtained. The material part of the sanction which was subsequently exhibited as P. 34 was as under:

(3.) The respondent at the trial denied the allegations against him about his having demanded or accepted bribe.