MASTERMAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal filed by the appellant who was an Assistant Sub Inspector of Police attached to the office of Superintendent of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi, against his conviction for an offence under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under section 161 Indian Penal Code and against his sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 15 months and a fine of Rs. 300.00 under section 5(2) of the Act and rigorous imprisonment for 15 months under section 161 Indian Penal Code

(2.) The prosecution case against the appellant is that while he was working as an Assistant Sub Inspector attached to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Crime & Railways, Delhi, he was entrusted with the investigation of a case against one Chhida, Lal of Hapur under section 420 Indian Penal Code in which one B. R. Manchanda was the complainant. The appellant went to Hapur on 5-1-1970 to investigate into this case and met Chhida Lal. He told him that Manchanda has filed a complaint against him for an offence under section 420 Indian Penal Code and that he had come to arrest him. Chhida Lal and his father requested the appellant not to arrest him and Chhida Lal promised to appear before the appellant at Delhi on any date fixed by him. But the appellant thereupon demanded a bribe of Rs. 1,000.00 from Chhida Lal for not arresting him. The appellant, however, agreed to take Rs. 400.00 for not arresting Chhida Lal. A sum of Rs. 200.00 was paid to him on the spot and Chhida Lal promised to pay the balance of Rs. 200.00 to the appellant at Delhi. When Chhida Lal went to Delhi subsequently and appeared before the appellant, the latter told Chhida Lal to effect a compromise with Manchanda and threatened to arrest Chhida Lal and file a case against him if the latter failed to effect a compromise with Manchanda. Chhida Lal made attempts at compromise with Manchanda but the attempts failed. When Chhida Lal informed the appellant about this, the latter again threatened to arrest Chhida Lal unless he was paid Rs. 200.00 by way of bribe. This was on 22-1-1970. Chhida Lal promised to pay this amount to the appellant the next day. On 23-1-1970 Chhida Lal, instead of paying this amount to the appellant, went to the office of the Superintendent of Police, Anti- Corruption Branch, Delhi, and informed them of the demand of the bribe by the appellant. He also informed that he had brought Rs. 200.00 with him in currency notes of rupee one hundred each. A statement was then recorded from Chhida Lal in the presence of witnesses and the numbers of the currency notes brought by Chhida Lal were also noted down. Chhida Lal was asked to go to the office of the appellant and in the presence of the witnesses hand over the amount to him. Accordingly, Chhida Lal went to the office of the appellant. The latter came out of the office and took Chhida Lal and one of the witnesses to the nearby restaurant. On seeing them entering the restaurant, the other witness along with the Head Constable of the police of Anti-Corruption Branch also went inside the restaurant and sat on a nearby table. In the presence of these witnesses, Chhida Lal handed over the amount of Rs. 200.00 to the appellant and the latter received them in his right hand. Immediately, the pre-arranged signal was given and the rest of the raid party headed by Inspector Des Raj entered the restaurant and the Inspector caught hold of the right hand of the appellant and challenged him for having received the bribe. The amount of Rs. 200.00 was found in the right hand of the appellant and the same was seized by the Inspector. The two currency notes contained the same numbers as had already been noted down. The appellant was arrested and after investigation, challaned under section 5(2) read with section 5(l)(d) of the Act and under section 161 Indian Penal Code .

(3.) The prosecution examined 12 witnesses in the trial court of whom P.W. 7 is Chhida Lal, the complainant, in this case. He stated that there were some transactions between him and B. R. Manchanda and that in February, 1966, their accounts were settled and a sum of Rs. 9,000.00 was agreed to be payable by him to Manchanda. He executed four cheques, two of Rs. 2,000.00 each and the other two of Rs. 2,500.00 each in Manchanda's favour. They were post-dated cheques. The understanding between them was that before encashing these cheques, Manchanda should hand over the sales-tax declarations in respect of their transactions to Public Witness 7. But when even after encashing two of the cheques for a total sum of Rs. 4,500.00 Manchanda did not give the sales-tax declarations to Public Witness 7, the latter instructed the bank to withhold payment on the remaining two cheques. Thereupon, Manchanda filed a civil suit against him and also filed a complaint with the police under section 420 Indian Penal Code . On 5-1-1970, the appellant came to Hapur along with other police officials and told him that he had come to arrest him in connection with this case. He and his father Girdhari Lal reauested the appellant not to arrest him, promising that Public Witness 7 would himself appear before the appellant at Delhi. Thereupon, the appellant demanded some money to be paid to him by way of bribe for not arresting him. The amount was settled at Rs. 200.00 by Ganga Saran who has been examined as P.W. 4. This amount was immediately paid by one Mohan Lal, a friend of Chhida Lal, to the appellant and the appellant accepted the same and asked Public Witness 7 to come to Delhi after a week. Accordingly the appellant went to Del'hi and met the appellant in his office, The latter then told Public Witness 7 to settle with Manchanda. After 4 days, P.W. 7 again met the appellant and told him that there could not be any settlement between him and Manchanda. On 22-1-1970, Public Witness 7 again met the appellant in his office and asked the appellant to effect the settlement between him and Manchanda and offered that in case of settlement being effected, he would, pay the appellant some mony. The appellant agreed and asked him to come and see him the next day. Instead of meeting the appellant, he went to the office of Anti-Corruption and made the report Ex. Public Witness 2/A. He also produced two currency notes of rupee one hundred each before the police and the numbers of these currency notes were also noted down. Then according to the instruction given to him, he went to the appellant's office along with one of the witnesses and met the appellant. The latterthen came to his office and they went to Thukral Restaurant. He and the other witness Hari Mohan sat on one side of the table and the appellant sat on the other. After 2 or 4 minutes, the other witness Todar Mal and one Head Constable of police also entered the restaurant and took their seats on a table near them. Public Witness 7 again requested the appellant to get his disputes with Manchanda settled. The appellant then told him that he would set the disputes settled at Rs. 8,500.00 and that he would himself charge Rs. 1,000.00 from Public Witness 7. He told the appellant that Rs. 1,000.00 was too-much for him. The appellant then told him that he would not accept anything less than Rs. 700.00- P.W, 7 then told the appellant that he had already paid Rs. 200.00 at Hapur, that he would pay Rs. 200.00 immediately and would pay Rs. 300.00 later. The appellant accepted Rs. 200.00 from him and placed the same on the table. At that time, Inspector Des Rai and the other members of his party entered the restaurant and challenged the appellant for having taken the bribe and recovered Rs. 200.00 from the table. At this stage, this witness was treated as hostile by the prosecution and was cross-examined with the permission of the Court with reference to his earlier statement made to the police. He admitted in the cross-examination that the appellant and his brother had contacted him and begged his pardon and told him that he was a family man and would be ruined if the case succeeded. In his cross-examination by the appellant, this witness stated that on or about 19-1-1970, he had met the appellant and told him that he would bring some money for settlement with Manchanda. and that he again met him on 22-1-1970 for the same purpose. He also stated that on 23-1-1970. the appellant told him that Manchanda would be coming to the restaurant and that the settlement would then be made.