RAM LUBHAYA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The facts giving rise to this appeal are that theappellant, Ram Lubhaya was posted as Court Master i.e. Reader in theCourt of Shri J.D.Kapur,Metropolitan Magistrate, New Delhi in the year1975. As per the prosecution version, on 6-9-1975 the complainant, GopalSingh, filed an application in the Court of Shri J.D. Kapur, M.M. for thereturn of his jack and stepney lying in the custody of the police. That application is Ex. Public Witness 1/F, the copy of which is Ex. Public Witness 1/G. Those applicationswere allegedly given by the complainant to Ram Lubhaya, the appellant.The complainant was asked to come on 8-9-1975. The complainant met theappellant. Ram Lubhaya on 8-9-1975, but he was asked to come on the nextday i.e. 9-9-1975 and that the appellant demanded Rs. 10 by way of bribe forgetting the order passed from the Magistrate concerned for the return ofthese articles to the complainant. The complainant promised to pay the saidbribe amount, provided he got favourable orders from the Court.

(2.) On 10-9-1975, the complainant, however, report the matter to theAnti Corruption Branch of Delhi Police and his statement was recorded,which is Ex. Public Witness 3/A. On the basis of the statement of the complainant, itwas decided to trap the appellant and S/Shri Narinder Vir Singh, working asStorekeeper, Institute of Commercial Practices; and Hawa Singh, Patwari inthe Land Acquisition Branch; D.C. Office were summoned to act as Panchwitnesses. In their presence, the recorded statement of the complainant,Ex. PW-3/A was read over to Gopal Singh, complainant, who admitted thesame to be correct. The complainant produced one G.C. note Ex. P-l of thevalue of Rs 10, number whereof was correctly recorded in the raid report Ex.PW1/A G.C. note was treated with phenolphthalein powder and the formaldemonstration test was given through Narinder Vir Sirgh. The G.C. notewas returned back to the complainant with directions to pass on the same tothe accused after having such talk and in such a manner so as to indicatethat the same was passed on by way of bribe. Similar instructions were alsoimparted to the two Panch witnesses to remain close to the complainant,hear the talk, watch the transaction and give the agreed signal as soon as thetainted currency note was passed on to the appellant. At about 1.55 p.m.the raiding party reached the Court premises at Parliament Street, NewDelhi. On reaching there the complainant, Gopal Singh along with NarinderVir Singh and Hawa Singh PWs proceeded to the Court ofShri J.D. Kapur,Judicial Magistrate, New Delhi, while the other members of the raiding partytook up their respective positions. At that time, the Court was not in session,while the appellant was present on his seat. As per the prosecution version,the complainant asked the appellant about his application. The appellantthen asked the complainant to take out Rs. 10. The complainant gavethe tainted G C. note to the appellant, who accepted it in his hand and keptthe same in left pocket of his pant. Thereafter the complainant give theagreed signal which was transmitted to the Inspector by Nawal Singh S.I.the Inspector reached the spot and after disclosing hi? identity, challengedhe appellent if he had accepted the bribe amount of Rs.10.00 from GopalSingh, complainant. The appellant produced the tainted G.C. note Ex. P-l,number whereof on comparison tallied with the number already recorded inthe raid report and that G.C. note was taken into possession vide seizurememo Ex. PW1/B. Left hand of the appellant was dipped in a solution ofsodium carbonate, as a result of which the same turned pink. The solutionwas transferred to bottle Ex. P-2, which was duly labelled, sealed and seized vide memo Ex. PW1/C. Pant Ex. P-4 was removed from the person of theappellant and inner lining of the left pant pocket was dipped in anotherprepared solution, as a result of which it turned pink. The same was transferred to bottle Ex.P-3, which was duly sealed, labelled and seized vide memoEx. PW-1/D. Pant P-4 was also taken into possession vide memo Ex. PW1/E.The two applications Ex.PW-l/F and PW-1/G were also taken into possessionvide memo Ex. PW-1/H. Both the Panch Witnesses, Narinder Vir Singh andHawa Singh, PWs while confirming the other details about the actual occurrence reiterated that they did not hear the talk that had transpired betweenthe complainant and the appellant.

(3.) During the trial the prosecution examined in all 7 witnesses insupport of its case, including the complainant and the Panch witnesses.