TARSEM LAL Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been filed by the appellant after the grant of special leave by this Court against his conviction under S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentence to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 150/- and also under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- awarded by Special Judge, Ambala. and maintained by the High Court of Punjab and Haryana by its judgment dated 23-12-1977.

(2.) According to the prosecution.. Shri M. G. Devasahayara P. W. 4 Sub-Divisional Officer, Jagadhri had sent a complaint against the appellant to the Station House Officer, Jagadhri on 7-6-1972 on the basis of which the first information report was recorded at Police Station about 4 P.M. on 7-6-1972. The Sub-Divisional Officer has received an application from one Gian Singh complainant about the conduct of the appellant. It was alleged by Gian Singh P. W. 2 in the complaint that the appellant who was a Patwari of Bambhol Circle, had been demanding money for supply of copies from the revenue record and Gian Singh needed those copies in connection with the execution of a sale deed. Gian Singh was to purchase land from Brij Bhushan who was to act as an Attorney for his mother. It was alleged that for this Rs. 200/-were settled out of which Rs. 50/- were paid and Rs. 150/- were to be paid on the date of the sale deed. The copies of the documents required were obtained after Rs. 50/- were paid. The sale deed was to be executed on 7-6-1972 and therefore on this date Gian Singh and Brij Bhushan approached the Sub-Divisional Officer with an application making these allegations against the appellant. The Sub-Divisional Officer attempted to contact the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Sub-Inspector of Police in charge of the Police Station concerned, but when none of them were available he himself decided to lay a trap. It is alleged that Gian Singh P. W. 2, Brij Bhushan P. W. 3, Raj Kumar and Mangal Singh P. W. 1 had gone to the house of the Sub-Divisional Officer at 2.40 P.M. on 7-6-1972. Gian Singh narrated the whole story and stated that he had promised to pay the appellant Rs. 150/- on the date on which the sale deed was to be executed. Rs. 150/- were produced by Gian Singh which included a 100 rupee note and 5 notes of Rs. 10/- each. Their numbers were noted and the Sub-Divisional Officer initialled the currency notes and they were given to Gian Singh and a trap" was laid. Brij Bhushan was asked to act as a witness. Gian Singh and Brij Bhushan therefore reached the canteen near the Tehsil. The Sub-Divisional Officer, Raj Kumar and Mangal Singh went to Tehsil premises in a Jeep and waited near the tea stall for a signal. On receiving the signal they reached there and on personal search currency notes of Rs. 150/- were recovered from the person of the appellant. On these facts the appellant was prosecuted and was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. The facts are not disputed. The money has been recovered from the possession of the appellant and it is also not disputed that he received this money from Gian Singh. Even before the High Court these facts were not disputed. The plea taken by the appellant was that the Govt. wanted to collect money from the land holders for small saving schemes and the Patwaris were instructed to collect this amount. Appellant also examined some defence to indicate that such circulars were issued to the Patwaris and they were collecting the amounts to be deposited in the small savings schemes and on this basis they received appreciation and those who could not collect sufficient amount to meet the target also received remarks. It was contended before the High Court and also before this Court that this amount the appellant had received as a deposit for the small savings scheme and which was ultimately recovered by the Sub-Divisional Officer. It was also contended that in fact the copies of the revenue record which were needed by Gian Singh had already been supplied to him:and in fact the sale deed was registered on 7th June before this trap and therefore it was alleged that Rs. 150/- were paid as alleged by appellant and it was on this basis contended that the explanation given by the. appellant that he had received the money to be deposited under the small savings scheme appear to be reasonable.

(3.) It is significant that when the Sub-Divisional Officer on getting the signal reached the canteen along with the witnesses and conducted the search it was not the stand of the appellant that he had received the money for small scale deposits as it is apparent that if the money was received for that purpose, as soon as the Sub-Divisional Officer reached the canteen with the witnesses and wanted to search the appellant, appellant would have immediately come out with this explanation. Learned counsel for the appellant frankly conceded that this was not the case of the appellant that he came out with this explanation on the spot at that time. This is not his case even in the statement recorded at the trial nor such a suggestion was put to anyone of the prosecution witnesses in the course of cross-examination. In view of this it could not be disputed that this explanation has been given as an afterthought and this itself goes to show that this explanation is just an imagination.