HAZARI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was tried by Shri Jagdish Chandra, Special Judge, Delhi who in terms of his judgment dated the 31st of October, 1972 convicted him under section502) of sentenced him to two 'years rigorous imprisonment and to a fine of the Prevention of Corruption Act, hereafter called "the Act" and Rs. 500.00in default of payment whereof the appellant was to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another period,of three months. The Special Judge convicted the appellant also under section the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment The sentences of imprisonment were to run concurrently. It is against that judgment that'the appellant has come up in appeal.

(2.) The prosecution case was that oneSri Ram had allegedly purchased scooter-rickshaw No. DLR-5813 from L.Gobind Ram and had employed Ram Lubhaya as a driver. It was alleged that there was an incident off the 12th July, 1969 which involved the said vehicle and another. On account of the vehicle having been involved in the incident it was removed to police station Kashmere Gate. Sri Ram, its owner obtained orders from the Magistrate concerned directing that the scooter rickshaw be given back to him. When he went to the police station he was held by a head constable that the scooter rickshaw should begiven back only on payment of Rs. 60.00. He then went to the Anti-corruption Branch the Delhi Police and made a statement on the 15th of July, 1969 before Inspector Paras th in which he stated that bribe had been demanded whereupon two witnesses were requisitioned in whose presence the statement made earlier by Sri Ram was read out. SriRam produced six currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10.00 each, the numbers of those currency notes were noted and the same were treated with phynolpatheilence powdef.It was explained to Sri Ram as well as to the witnesses.meant to be included in the raiding party that whoseover touched the currency notes his hands would become polluted and when dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate the same would turn Sri Ram was instructed to pass on the bribe the presence of panch witnesse to the person who had demanded it. It was stitled that after the passing of the bribe the Inspector of Police would be infarmed in-the manner described in the raid report. The raiding party proceeded to police station Kashmere Gate. It may be notice that the appellant was in these days functioning as a constable of police and not as a head constable. Sri Ram accompanied by Ram Lubhaya and Kewal Krishan one of the panch witnesses went to pass the currency notes to the person who had demanded the bribe. The other panch witness Devinder Kumar was not sent alongwith him. It is alleged that Hazari Lal appellant was in his room and when the six currency notes mentioned above were given to him he took them and put the same in the right hand side pocket oft his trousers. The Inspector of Police who had organized the raid was apprised of it and he then accompanied by the rest of the members of the raiding party entered the room where Hazari Lal was. On being alarmed by the raiding party the appellant allegedly took out some G. C. notes from the right side pocket of his pants and threw them accross the wall in the adjoining room . what happened thereafter may be,noticed in terms of the deposition of inspector Paras Nath,P.W.8:-

(3.) It may be mentioned that after the prosecution was launched permission was sought to withdraw it and on the 27th of July, 1970 the trial' Court permitted there-investigation of the crime. P.W.9Shri S. C. Katoch, a Deputy Superintendent of Police in the Anti-corruption Branch of the Delhi Police when examined before the Court below stated that he re-investigated the case. When the fresh challan was put in Court an application was filed on behalf of the appellant before the then Special Judge Shri M. L. Jain which is on page 47 of the original record. It was alleged therein that a re-investigation having been ordered the prosecution had submitted a supplementary challan but that the re-investigation had been completed by an Inspector and not by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. It was also stated that the 'statements of the prosecution witnesses recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code were the same as those recorded by the Inspector in the previous investigation. It was alleged that the raid having been carried out by Inspector Paras Nath who was not competent to do that, inspite of the re-investigation the investigation temained bad in law. Theprayer,was in view of the above mentioned submission it is prayed that this honble Court may amend the charge so as to drop the section 161 in the Indian Penal Code." At one stage I felt it necessary to examine Public Witness PW3 Sri Ram the complainantat whose instance the raid was organized and Shri S. C. Katoch inorder to find out that there had been really a re-investigation or not and they were examined. Public Witness PW3 Sri Ram asserted that he had never been examined by Shri S.C. Katoch. Shri S. C. Katoch, however, was equally vehement that he had interrogated Sri Ram and had re-investigated the case. He. stated that he did not have a good hand writing in Urdu and he had dictated the statements after interrogating the witnesses which were re-recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code and the same were signed by .him. While seeking satisfaction in respect of that controversy I have come across the statement of Public Witness PW4 Devinder Kumar made on the 5th of July 1972 in which he stated that after about a year of the raid he had been called to the Anti-corruption office where his statement regarding the occurrence was re-recorded by a Deputy Superintendent of Police. Anti-corruption whose name he mentioned as Shri S. C. Katoch. It is to be not iced that appearing as Public Witness PW9 at the trial Shri S.C. Katoch staled that he had recorded the statement of the complainant which was Ex. Public Witness PW3/B and that of Ram Lubhaya which was Ex. Public Witness PW6/B. The statement made by Devinder Kumar was "proved as Ex.PW9/ and that of Kewal Krishan as Public Witness PW9/B.1 have Carefully perused the statements recorded by Shri Paras Nath Inspector of Police under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, hereafter called the Code" and those recorded under the said provsion by Shri S.C. Katoch. There is no merit in the argument that the statements are identical. A close comparison shows that different words have been used in the course of recording the statements. The witnessses were of course telling on both occasions 'whatever was known to them.The statements in respect of the same occurrence were bound to be similar to each other. I may observe that the imposition by section 5-A of the Act is that the offences mentioned therein areto.beinvesugatedbythe officials who may be duly authorised within its perview. The investigation, however, is always of an offence after it has been committed. The commission of offences by the accused came into being only after the alleged acceptance of the bribe. All that was done byinspector Paras Nath before that did not incur any disability tinder section 5-A.