GMOOGAPPA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the Special Judge, Civil Station, Bangalore, In Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 1958 convicting the appellant. G. Moogappa of offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) and sentencing him to suffer simple imprisonment for three months and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- on each of the counts and in default of the payment of fine to suffer simple imprisonment for one month with a direction that the substantive sentences in respect of the two founts should run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant and one Nanjiah, a peon attached to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Civil Station, were both tried on a charge that they while being public servants directly accepted from Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai illegal gratification as a motive or reward for doing an official act, namely, for returning a gift-deed which she had presented for registration on 12th of August, 1957 and had thereby abused their position as public servants. The learn cd Special Judge acquitted Nanjiah, who was the second accused before him, giving him the benefit of doubt, but found that the case against the appellant had been clearly established on both the counts and convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

(3.) Appellant C. Moogappa was serving as the Sub-Registrar in Civil Station, Bangalore, in the month of August, 1957. On 12th of August, 1957 Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai, a retired lady Doctor and her daughter Mrs. Bharathi Rao accompanied hy their Advocate Mr. U. Subramanyam of the Bangalore Bar went to the office of the appellant for getting a gift-deed registered. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai presented the document for registration to the appellant at about 3 P.M. on that day. The execution of the document was admitted by Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai and her daughter Mrs. Bharathi Rao and their thumb impressions in token thereof were taken before the appellant. Mr. U. Subramanyam identified the executants in the office. The appellant then issued Exhibit D-1, a receipt. 12-9-1957 was fixed as the date for receiving back the document in Exhibit D-1. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai enquired the appellant as to whether it was possible to deliver the document earlier than the date mentioned in Exhibit D-1. The appellant said that she could have it after about a week. Immediately thereafter, the executants and their Advocate Mr. U. Subramanyam left the Office. Mr. U. Subramanyam and Mrs. Bharathi Rao were walking ahead in the lobby in front of the Sub-Registrar's Office while Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai was a few feet behind them in the lobby. It is stated that while Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai was in the lobby Nanjiah (who was A-2 in the Trial Court), peon attached to the Office of the Sub-Registrar, Civil Station. Bangalore, followed her from behind and stretched his hand towards her muttering something in Kannada which Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai did not understand. Being under the impression that the peon was probably asking for some "bakshish" she took out a rupee-note from her hand-bag and handed it over to him. After receiving the said note, Nanjiah said something in Kannada and pointed out both his hands in the direction of the Office of the Sub-Registrar. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai gained the impression that the peon had been sent by the Sub-Registrar in connection with some flaw in the document presented for registration by her and went back to the place where the appellant was sitting in his chair and questioned him as to why she had been called back. It is stated that the appellant did not give any reply. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai, therefore, looked in the direction of the peon and asked him why he had brought her to the place. Nanjiah then made a sign with his fingers giving Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai the impression that he was referring to the money to be paid to the Sub-Registrar. Thereafter Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai took out a ten-rupee currency note from her hand-bag and handed it over to the appellant, who took it and put it into his drawer without saying anything. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai then requested the appellant as to whether she could got the document a week later to which the appellant replied that the return of the document will take a month. Thereafter Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai reminded the appellant that he had just a few minutes back told her that he would see that the document was delivered to her after a week. It is stated that the appellant told her that the staff was overworked and pointed out the file of papers before him and told her that it is not possible for him to deliver the document within about a week. From the demeanour of the appellant Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai gained an impression that he was not satisfied with the amount of Rs. 10/- that she had paid to him. She then walked out of the Office to the portico where the car had been parked and got into the car. Mr. U. Subramanyam and Mrs. Bharathi R. Rao were already seated in the car and were waiting for her. When the car was about to be started Nanjiah, the Sub-Registrar's peon came up to the car and told Mr. Subramanyam that he was wanted by the Sub-Registrar. Mr. Subramanyam then went and met the appellant in his office and questioned him as to why he was sent for. The appellant told Mr. U. Subramanyam that Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai had paid him only a sum of Rs. 10/-; that he was thoroughly dissatisfied and that he expected at least Rs. 25/- and requested him to speak to her and see that she paid at least Rs. 25. Mr. U. Subramanyam told the appellant that he disapproved such things and that he would not speak to his client and went back to the car. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai questioned Mr. U. Subramanyam why he had been sent for by the Sub-Registrar and learnt from him that the Sub-Registrar informed him that she had already paid a sum of Rs. 10/- to him and that the Sub-Registrar requested him that he should ask her to pay at least Rs. 25. Mr. U. Subramanyam expressed to Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai that she should not have paid Rs. 10 as bribe and encouraged a public servant to accept bribes. Dr. Mrs. K. Tarabai said that though she had paid the money, she knew what to do in the matter. Then all of them proceeded to their respective places.