JAI RAM LAKHE Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High court dated 24/11/1971, upholding the conviction of appellant Jai Ram Lakhe of an offence under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for I year and a fine of Rs. 100. 00.

(2.) The appellant was posted as Tehsil Welfare Officer, Samrala, district Ludhiana, from November, 1968. Shadi Ram (Public Witness 3) , who was a harijan, applied and obtained a subsidy of Rs. 800. 00 from the Welfare department in August, 1968 for raising a piggery. It was alleged that the appellant went to Shadi Ram's village and told him that as he had not purchased pigs of the prescribed standard, he should either purchase them from the government farm or refund the subsidy. It was alleged further that the appellant ultimately asked for a sum of Rs. 100. 00 as illegal gratification for dropping of the matter, and it was settled that Shadi Ram would pay him Rs. 50. 00. He gave him Rs. 19. 00 then and there, and promised to pay the rest later on. Shadi Ram received a letter on behalf of the appellant asking him to appear in his office on 6/01/1969) but he went there on 14/01/1969, and paid another Rs. 10. 00 and one kilogram meat to the appellant. It was further alleged that the appellant again visited shadi Ram on 26/01/1969, and asked for the balance of Rs. 21. 00 which shadi Ram promised to give the next day. Shadi Ram however contacted vigilance Inspector Tirath Singh (Public Witness 9) who was known to him, at ludhiana on 27/01/1969. The Inspector went to Samrala to organisea trap the same day. The raiding party consisted of Shadi Ram (Public Witness 3) , bhag Singh (Public Witness 5) , Gurdial Singh (Public Witness 6) and Inspector Tirath Singh (PW 9). The numbers of currency notes of Rs. 21. 00 were noted by the party, and Shadi Ram (Public Witness 3) and Bhag Singh (Public Witness 5) were instructed to go to the office of the appellant, which was closeby. It was settled that bhag Singh (Public Witness 5) would give a signal to Gurdial Singh (Public Witness 6) after the money had been paid to the accused. Shadi Ram and Bhag Singh went and found the appellant sitting alone in his office, and it is alleged that shadi Ram gave Rs. 21. 00 to the appellant, on his asking for the same, in the presence of Bhig Singli. Bhag Singh (Public Witness 5) went upstairs and gave the signal. It is the case of the prosecution that the appellant somehow became suspicious, got down from his office, went to the shop of Sarwan Chand (PW 7) and handed over Rs. 21. 00 to him there for adjustment against his account. Bhag Singh followed the appellant when he was going downstairs and claimed that he had seen him giving the money to Sarwan Chand. He then went upstairs and the appellant followed him. Inspector Tirath singh reached the office of the appellant, and when Bhag Singh told him that the money had been given to Sarwan Chand, he went to him and recovered the same currency notes, in the absence of the appellant. The trial Judge and the High court rejected the defince of false implication because of enmity, and that is why the appellant has come up to this court in appeal.

(3.) We have gone through the evidence on record and find that there is justification for the argument of the appellant's learned Counsel that the trial court and the High court have not taken the following facts and circumstances into consideration even though they had been established by the evidence on record and had a direct bearing on the guilt of the appellant: