SULTAN SINGH Vs. THE STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave arises from the decision of the High Court of Rajasthan in Criminal Appeal No. 785 of 1963 on its file where in the High Court agreeing with the findings of the trial court confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but enhanced at the instance the State the sentence imposed by the trial court from six months rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200.00 to months 18 rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200.00.

(2.) The appellant was the Patwari of Halza Karoli in Alwar Tehsil. The charge against him is that he demanded and obtained a bribe of Rs. 100.00 from P.W. 10, Tarachand for supplying him copies of Khasra Teepz relating to 31 Khasra numbers in the village of Chirkhana, for samvats 2011 to 2017. According to P. W. 10, the appellant insisted on getting Rs. 100 from him for giving those copies though the legal charge for giving same was Rs. 20.00 He complained about this matter to P.W. I., Ramjilal Agarwal, the Zila Pramukh. P.W. I. took P.W. 10, on May 4, 1961 to P.W. 12, Shri Sohanlal Talwar, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Bharatpur and informed him about the complaint of P.W. 10. P.W. 12 recorded a complaint from P.W. 10. P.W. 10 then produced a hundred rupees currency notes before P.W. 12 who initialled the same and returned it to P.W. 10 after noting its number, to be given to the appellant. Thereafter P.W. 10 accompanied by P.W. 1, P.W. 11, Laxminarain, clerk in the Anti Corruption Department and P.W. 6, Rangilal went to the house of the appellant. Not finding the appellant there they went in search of the appellant in Alwar Town. Ultimately they saw him in the dispensary of Dr. Kaul, backoned the appellant to go into an inner room where he passed on the hundred rupees currency note to the appellant. Then P.W. 10 and the appellant came out of the inner room and sat in the consulting room of Dr. Kaul. At that time P.W. 10 asked the appellant to note down the years for which he wanted the Khasra Nos. Accordingly the appellant noted those numbers on Ext. P. 12. Soon thereafter P.W. 10 signalled P.W. 6 whereupon he went and fetched P.W. 12 who searched and seized the hundred rupees currency note and Ex. 12 from the person of the appellant. This in brief is the prosecution case.

(3.) At this stage it is convenient to set out the defence version. According to the appellant there was some mis-understanding between him and P.W. 10. Some of the properties of P.W. 10 were under joint cultivation of himself and his tenants. P.W. 10 wanted to evict his tenants. In that connection there was litigation between him and his tenants. P.W. 10 wanted the appellant to change the Khasra teeps in his sole name to make out a case of his exclusive possession but the appellant refused to do so. Therefore P. W. 10 was piqued with the appellant. According to the appellant he was only in possession of Khasra teeps of Samvats 2016 and 2017. He had given the copies of those teeps to P.W. 10 long before the alleged date of the occurrence. Other teeps were in the Tehsil office. Hence there was no occasion for P.W. 10 to ask for the copies of those documents. Nor was he asked to give their copies. His further case is that P.W. 10 was in arrears of land revenues to the extent of Rs. 260/45 P. The appellant had been asked by the Tehsildar to collect the same. Notice demanding the arrears had already been issued to P.W. 10.