MANOHAR SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal, preferred under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure 1973 (hereinafter to be referred as Cr. P. C), is directed against the judgment and order dated 03. 12. 1992 passed by Special Judge, Anti corruption/addl. District Judge, Dehradun, in c. B. I. Case No. 9/86, CBI Versus M. S. Chauhan, whereby the learned Special Judge has convicted the appellant-accused under section 161 of The Indian Penal Code, 1850 (hereinafter to be referred as IPC) and also under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of corruption Act, 1947 (Act II of 1947) (hereinafter to be referred as the Act ). The appellant was sentenced to three months' r. I. u/s 161 IPC and further three months' r. I. under section u/s 5 (2) of the Act with fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo one month's S. I. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.

(2.) I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire material available on record.

(3.) IN brief, the prosecution case is that P. W. 1 babu lodged a report before S. P. , CBI, dehradun on 7. 10. 1985 stating therein that he is working as Sweeper at Mathura Junction, central Railway and his son Giridhar was working as a casual sweeper since last three months under the appellant/accused manohar Singh Chauhan, Health Inspector. After completion of 120 days, a casual sweeper becomes eligible to be employed as a Substitute Sweeper. On 5. 10. 1985, when the complainant met with the appellant/accused in this context, then appellant)accused demanded Rs. 400/- in bribe and he also warned the complainant that if the money would not be paid, then his (complainant's) son would be out from his service. The complainant requested the appellant/accused that he could not pay the entire money at once then the appellant / accused directed him to pay the money by paying Rs. 50/- per month and first installment was directed to be paid on 11. 10. 1985. It was further averted by the complainant that he did not want to pay bribe, however the appellant/accused was not interested to do any work without bribe. With the same averments, the FIR Ex. Ka-1 was lodged on 7. 10. 1985 at 3:00 p. m. by P. W. I Babu. On the basis of this FIR (Ex. Ka-1), Chik FIR was prepared, i. e. Ex. Ka. 21. The investigation of this case was entrusted to P. W. 5 H. C. Bisht, deputy S. P. Thereafter, the memo of Trap was prepared, i. e. Ex. Ka-2 and the trap party and the witnesses also signed on it. Thereafter, the trap was conducted in which two G. C. Notes of denomination Rs. 20/- each and one G. C. note of denomination of Rs. 10/-, in total three notes amounting to Rs. 50/-, were recovered from the shirt of the appellant/accused and Recovery Memo ex. Ka-3 was prepared. The I. O. also preparec the site plan of the place of occurrence, i. e ex. Ka-22. Seizure memo of the article recovered from the office of appellant/accused was also prepared on 11. 10. 1985, i. e. Ex. Ka-23. On 16. 12. 1985, the I. O. also took in his possession some documents and prepared the seizure memo, i. e. Ex. Ka. 31. The I. O. . also took the sanction from the addl. Divisional Railway Manager (G) Central railway, Jhansi for prosecuting the appellant/accused, i. e. Ex. Ka. 30. During investigation, the I. O. recorded the statements of witnesses and on completion of investigation, filed the charge sheet in the court, i. e. Ex. Ka-32.