STATE OF AJMER NOW RAJASTHAN Vs. SHIVJI LAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is on a certificate granted by the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. One Shivji Lal Joshi (hereinafter called the accused) was prosecuted under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, No, II of 1947. He was convicted by the Special Judge on both counts and sentenced to suffer rigorous imprisonment for a total period of six months. He filed an appeal before the Judicial Commissioner of Ajmer. 'The appeal was allowed on the ground that the accused was not a public servant, though the Judicial Commissioner agreed with the findings of the Special Judge so far as the facts were concerned. The State applied for a certificate under Art 134 (1)(c) of the constitution to enable it to appeal to this Court. This certificate was granted; and that is how the appeal, has come before us.

(2.) The facts which have been found by both the courts are these. The accused was a teacher in the railway school at Phulera. Prem Singh who was the complainant was known to the accused for about a year before the incident which took place on 6-10-1954 He was in search of a job and the accused had told him a number of times that he would procure a job for him in the Railway Running Shed at Abu Road, 4 Prem Singh paid him Rs. 100. On 5-10-1954, the accused had met Prem Singh at Kaiserganj in Ajmer and told him that Dusehra holidays were approaching and if he paid Rs. 100 the accused would go to Abu Road to secure a job for him. Eventually it was agreed between the two that Prem Singh would pay him Rs. 50 on the next day while the remaining Rs. 50 would be paid after the job had been secured. After this agreement, Prem Singh went to the Deputy Superintendent Police (Special Police Establishment), and made a complaint to the effect that the accused had told him that he could secure employment for him at Abu Road Loco Shed as he had considerable influence there and had demanded Rs. 100 as illegal gratification for that purpose. Prem Singh also said that it had been settled that be would pay Rs. 50 in advance and Rs. 50 after his appointment. Consequently, Prem Singh wrote out an application addressed to the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Abu Road, and also produced five ten-rupee notes before the Deputy Superintendent Police. The numbers of these notes were noted down and the Deputy Superintendent Police arranged that one Nathu Singh should accompany Prem Singh as a cousin when Prem Sing met the accused next day to pay him the money. On 6-10-1954, Prem Singh accompanied by Nathu Singh met the accused as arranged and the accused asked him for an application. Prem Singh gave him the application which he had already written out and the accused said that that would serve the purpose. The accused then asked Prem Singh for the money and he handed over the five ten-rupee notes, adding that he would pay the remaining Rs. 50 after getting service and assuring him that he would keep to his part of the bargain. Thereafter Prem Singh gave the pre-arranged signal and the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police arrived. The Deputy Superintendent Police disclosed his identity and searched the person of the accused. In that search, the application which Prem Singh had written for the Divisional Mechanical Engineer, Abu Road, and the five ten rupee notes were recovered. Thereafter the accused was prosecuted as already mentioned above.

(3.) The accused admitted that the application as well as the five ten-rupee notes were recovered from him by the police. His explanation was that one Jiwan Ram had given him the application which was in English and which was said to be a letter for a friend of Jiwan Ram at Abu Road. The accused did not know English and took the application to be a letter to be delivered to the friend of Jiwan Ram. Jiwan Ram also gave him five ten-rupee notes to be given to that very friend of his when the accused went to Abu Road. As already stated, both the courts below have accepted the prosecution version set out above and disbelieved the explanation given by the accused. The Special Judge convicted the accused on the basis of the prosecution story. The Judicial Commissioner, though he accepted the prosecution story to be true, held that the accused was not a public servant and therefore ordered his acquittal. The main question that has been raised on behalf of the appellant therefore in this appeal is that the Judicial Commissioner erred in holding that the accused was not a public servant within the meaning of S. 21 of the Indian Penal Code.