KHARAITI LAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The learned Special Judge, Delhi, by his order date 2nd September, 1964, convicted Kharaiti Lal, Assistant Sub Inspector of Police under section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and section 161 of the India Penal Code and sentenced him to one and a half years' rigorous imprisonment on each count and in addition to the payment of a fine of Rs. 1000.00 or in default to suffer rigorous imprisonment for another period of four months under the first court. Both the substantive terms of imprisonment were made to run concurrently. The convict appeals.

(2.) The prosecution story may briefly be stated. Bed Ram (P.W.1.) is running handloom factory and also living inplots Nos. 16 and 17 in the area of Pratap Bagh, Delhi. In the year 1953 a theft took place in the store room of these premises. The matter was reported to the Roshan Ara police. Kharaiti Lal accused appellant, who was posted at the said police station, during the investigation noted the particulars of the complainant's workmen and relations. The latter in order to avoid harassment to his employees and relations paid Rs. 100.00 as illegal gratification to the accused-appellant, who again visited his premises during the month of January 1964 and stated that one Babu Lal had complained against him inwriting (Exhibit P. D. dated 15th January, 1964) and offered that if Rs. 150.00were paid to him he would hush up the matter. Bed Ram complaint expressed his inability to pay the amount on that day and promised to make the payment on the day following. Instead he went to one Babu Lal Bechain, his friend, and narrated to him all that had passed between him and the accused- appellant. Babu Lal Bechain advised that he should put off the accused-appellant for the time begin and fix precise date and time for payment of the bribe to him. The complainant returned to his house and to hbis great surprise the accused-appellant did not turn up till 2nd February, 1964 when he again demanded the bribe. The complainant modestly replied that he had just paid wages to his workmen and was left with no money and, consequently, requested him to come again on the following day when he would be able to make the payment The time fixed was between 5-00 and 6-00 P.M. The complainant again went to the house of Babu Lal bechain on the next day and told him that he had asked the accused-appellant to come to his house the same day in the evening. Babu Lal Bechain accompanied him to the office of the Anti-Corruption Department at Tis Hazari Courts in the afternoon. D.S.P. Mukat Dhari Singh (P. W. 7) recorded Bed Ram's statement Exhibit P. A. which bears his signatures. He also sent for two clerks, namely, Brij Nandan (P. W. 2) and Krishan Kumar (P W. 4) from the Labour Office of the Delhi Administration to function as Panch witnesses. Bed Ram in their presence produced one currency note of RS.100.00 and five currency notes of Rs. 10.00 each, Exhibits p. 1 to P. 6, the numbers of which were noted by the Deputy Supperintendent of Police in memorandum Exhibit P. B. The Deputy Supperindent of Police directed the complainant to ss on the currency notes within the sight of the Panch witnesses and to talk loudly with the accused so that it could also be heard by them. He was to give signal to the Deputy Superintendent of Police by spitting on the ground when the bribe had been passed on to the accused appellant. The raid party left for the spot in a Government vehicle at about 4-45 or 5-00 P.M. The vehicle was left on the Ring Road. S.I. Ved Parkash and the two Panch witnesses, Brij Nandan and Krishan Kumar, accompanied Bed Ram complainant inside his house. The Deputy Superintendent of Police waited outside at point F, reference plan Exhibit P.L. The Sub-Inspector and the two Panch witnesses were made to sit behind a heap of chaddars at places shown as e, d, E in plan Exhibit P.L. The complainant took his seat on the other side of the heap of chaddars at point A. When he had finished his evening prayers the accused-appellant entered his hut. He left his bicycle at point H, and I should say unattended. He sat at point B close to the complainant. The accused-appellant addressed the complainant that if he was a devotee of the goddess, he should visit Vaishno Devi in his company which he promised to do. The complainant then informed the accused-appellant that he had already paid Rs. 100.00 to him in connection with the theft case and that he could pay him Rs. 100.00 more in connection with the present complaint as this was all which he had with him at the time. The accused stated that this amount was not enough for him to cover the expenses of the woollen uniform which he badly needed and that he should pay the entire sum of Rs 150.00. The complainant handed over the money to the accused- appellant who after counting the same placed it in the inner pocket of his overcoat. The complainant offered tea to him which he declined. In the meantime S. I. Ved Parkash, Brij Nandsn, and Krishan Kumar (P. Ws.) came out and secured the accused-appellant. The complainant walked out of the hut and spitted on the ground which attracted the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the spot who after disclosing his identity and getting his person searched as he thought it was necessary under the law, in turn searched the accused appellant's person and recovered six currency notes Exhibit P. 1 to P. 6 of the value of Rs. 150.00 from the inner pocket of his overcoat. The numbers of these currency notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes noted in memorandum Exhibit P.B. Further search of the accused's person led to the recovery of a purse containing about Rs. 30.00 which were also taken into possession. The Deputy Superintendent of Police took into possession the paper including Exhibits P.D. and P.E. which the accused-appellant was carrying at the time. The bicycle left by the accused-appellant was taken into possession. The accused appellant was arrested. The case was investigated after obtaining sanction of the appropriate authority and the challan was put in the Court with the result as indicated above.

(3.) The accused-appellant in answer to question No. 15 put to him under section 342 of the Code of Criminal Procedure explained the incident in the following terms :-