JAT CHANDER Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Jai Chander Madan appellant was employed as an Auditor-cum-Civilian Clerk in the Pay andAccounts Office, Rajputana Riflas Regimental Centre, Delhi Cantonment.He has been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Delhi by his judgment dated 6/06/1956, under section 161, Indian Penal Code, andsection 5(1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of CorruptionAct, 1947, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one yearon the first count and rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fineof Rs. 500.00 on the second count, and in default of payment of fine toundergo further rigorous imprisonment for six months. The prosecutioncase in brief is that Havildar Nawal Singh No. 2914244 (P. W. 1) wastransferred to Delhi on 15/07/1964, as his retirement was due in afew days and his pension papers had to be completed. The final account(Exhibit P. 2) was prepared on 10/08/1964, according to which asum of Rs. 2,341.30 P were payable to Hav. Nawal Singh. The saidamount was paid on 21/08/1964, vide Exhibit D.W.3/6, whichis signed by Hav. Nawal Singh (P.W. 1) and countersigned by the Commandant, Rajputana Rifles. In said document the amount is stated to bein "final settlement of account on discharge etc. signed by Hav. NawalSingh and countersigned by Major P. S. Brar (P. W. 8) wherein Hav.Nawal Singh has acknowledged the payment of Rs. 834.80 P. only infinal settlement of his pay arrears of pay and all other demands. It appearsthat these receipts were taken before the actual payment after the amountdue had been verified by all concerned, including Hav. Nawal Singhas is the usual practice in Governments Departments. The prosecutioncase proceeds that later on Hav. Nawal Singh realised that a sum ofabout Rs. 115.00 more was due to him and he, therefore, went to theappellant on 24/08/1964. The appellant agreed to help Hav.Nawal Singh in realisation of the said amount provided he paid himhalf of that money. This demand of the appellant was later reduced toRs. 50/-. Hav. Nawal Singh immediately went and complained thematter to Major P. S. Brar (P. W. 8), who did not believe Hav. NawalSingh and therefore, required him to meet the appellant againHav. Nawal Singh went to the appellant again on 2 5/08/1964, and the appellant reported his demand of bribe.Hav.Nawal Singh went to Major P. S. Brar on 26/08/1964,complaining about the laid demind by the applicant but MajorP. S. Brar asked him to put in a written complaint whichhe did (Exhibit P. 1). On receipt of the said complaint MajorP. S. Brar organised a raid. Since Hav. Nawal Singh did not have themoney. Major Brar provided him with Rs. 50.00 to be passed on to theappellant in presence of the members of the raiding party. He prepared a memo.. Exhibit P. 12, containing the a numbers of the currencynotes handed over to Hav. Nawal Singh. According to the said documentthe currency notes were handed over at 11.35 AM The other personainvited by Major P. S. Brar to join the raiding party were CaptainK.P. Tomar (P. W. 11) and Jamadar Sri Chand (P. W. 3). Both ofthem are named in Exhibit P. 12. The three members of the raidingparty proceeded to the office of the accused. According to CaptainTomar, Hav. Nawal Singh went inside the office of the appellant whilethe other two members stayed out. He came out after an hour or soand told the members of the raiding party that the appellant wouldaccept the money after office hours at 5 P.M. According to Hav.Nawal Singh (P. W. 1), however: he did not go Inside the office inpresence of the members of the raiding party because the appellant hadalready told him that he would accept the money later. At the appointed time the appellant came out of his office and Hav. Nawal Singh wentafter him, had some talk which Captain Tomar and Jamadar Sri. Chanddid not hear, and passed on Rs. 50.00 to the appellant. This passing ofmoney was, however, seen by other members of the raiding party. Assoon as the appellant had the money in his pocket. Captain Tomar andJemadar Sri Chand, P. Ws., caught hold of the appellant and askedhim why he had accepted the money from Hav. Nawal Singh, but theappellant got nervous. He was immediately taken to adjutant A. S.Brar (P. W. 7) who asked appellant to produce the money, which hedid. The appellant explained that the currency notes had been givento him in repayment of the loan taken by Hav. Nawal Singh. It wason 28/08/1964, that a communication was sent to the police(Exhibit P. 10), which is signed by Adjutant A. S. Brar. It is mentioned in the said document-

(2.) I am not perpared to believe the statement of Hav. Nawal Singhfor various reasons, such as...

(3.) The learned counsel for the prosecution suggested that if thetwo visits of Hav. Nawal Singh to the appellant's office in July, 1964are excluded out of consideration, the story of loan put forth by theappellant would fall to the ground. But. since I am not prepared toexclude the possibility of those visits, there appears to be no merit inthis contention of the prosecution.