AGOPALAKRISHNA NAIK Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant who was the Inspector of Motor Vehicles in Raichur District between January and April 1958 was tried and convicted in Criminal Case No. 2/2 of 1958 on the file of the learned Special Judge, Raichur, under Section 161 I.P.C. and under Section 5(2) read with Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (which shall be hereinafter called the "Act") and sentenced to suffer simple imprisonment for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 100, in default to suffer further one month's simple imprisonment.

(2.) The prosecution case is that when P.W. 4 (Mallikarjun Maski) the agent of Sharan Baswaraj (P.W. 3) went to the appellant on 14.4.1958 for the issue of a fitness certificate to lorry No. MYQ, 432 belonging to P.W. 3, the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 50 before certifying to the fitness of the lorry m question; P.W. 4 duly informed this fact to P.W. 3; P.W. 3 was not willing to pay any bribe; he (P.W. 3) desired to bring to book the appellant; therefore he gave a sum of Rs. 50 to P.W. 4 and asked him to contact the Anti-Corruption Police; accordingly P.W. 4 contacted P.W. 8 (Rama Rao Paga) Anti-Corruption Police Inspector on the 15th; after obtaining necessary permission from the learned Magistrate, P.W. 2 (Sri Adivachar Sowdikar) a trap was arranged find P.W. 4 was asked to pay Rs. 50 to the appellant in case he demanded; P.W. 4 took the lorry on the afternoon of the I5th for inspection; then again the appellant insisted on getting Rs. 50 as bribe; then the currency notes, which Were treated with phenolphthalein powder earlier, were passed on to the appellant; then he (P.W. 4) gave the pre-arranged signal; at once the Police rushed to the scene and tried to catch the appellant who was at that time testing lorry No. MYQ. 126; immediately the appellant threw the notes in question into the road through the opening in the gear box; but the same was noticed by P.Ws. 8 and others; they were picked UP at once; when the fingers and the coat pockets of the appellant were tested, they fere found to contain phenolphthalein powder; the appellant was arrested and sent to remand; after due enquiry a charge-sheet was laid.

(3.) At this stage itself we may summarise the contentions advanced on behalf of the appellant. According to the appellant, P.W. 3 is one of the Zamindars of that place; he is known as Raja Sharan Basavaraja; taking advantage of his position in life, he was running his lorry No. MYQ. 432 without paying the tax due; this came to the notice of the authorities; therefore P.W. 3 submitted an intimation on 2.4.1958 intimating that lie is not using his lorry No. MYQ. 432; on that application, the R.T.O. issued a memo to the appellant on 4.4.1958 to the following effect: Order. The M.V.I. Richur. He should report whether the vehicle No. MYQ. 432 was actually off the road from 24.1.1958. Your report should reach this office by 15th April, 1958; the same day another memo was issued to P.W. S which says: You have intimated the non-use of the vehicle MYQ. 432 with effect from 24.1.1958. As such you have to pay the tax of January 1958 amounting to Rs. 176 and penalty of Rs. 658/50 to the delay in payment of tax due for January for the months from January 58 to March 58, the above arrears should be paid early. On 10.4.1958, the appellant saw lorry No. MYQ. 432 being used for the transport of cotton; he forthwith charge-sheeted the driver for the illegal use of the lorry the said case was pending at the time of the occurrence with which we are concerned in this case and the same ended in conviction on 18.4.1958; between the 10th and, 14th of April the appellant was touring with the R.T.O.; he returned to the Headquarters only on the 14th; on the 15th noon, lorry No. MYQ. 432 was brought to his house for inspection; he inspected the same, on his way from his house to the office and after going to the office he submitted his report called for as per the memo dated 4.4.1958; in the said report he had mentioned that as the owner of the lorry had not mentioned clearly where the vehicle was kept, it Was not possible to make the necessary enquiries regarding the vehicle; he had also informed in that report about the detection of the unlawful use of the lorry on 10.4.1958. His further case is that after sending that report he came out of the office and checked first the lorry No. MYQ. 472 and thereafter lorry No. MYQ. 126; when he was checking the lorry No. MYQ. 126, P.W. 8 stopped his lorry and asked him to get down; at the same time P.W. 6 (Habib Ahmed) was asked to get under that lorry and he picked up from under the lorry a sum of Rs. 50, The contention of the appellant is the the entire trap was a stage managed affair, got up by P.W. 8 in collusion with P.W. 3 and his friends. It is urged on behalf of the appellant that P.W. 3 might not have relished the action taken by the appellant in booking his lorry on the 10th; he. might have also suspected that he would report adversely as regards the alleged1 non-use of the lorry; hence he wanted to teach the appellant a lesson so that not only that he may not trouble him later but other officers may also realise his position and power.