GHANSHIAM SINGH Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) P.N.Goel:-Ghanshiam Singh appellant, Lekhpal of village Barkala, district Bijnor has been convicted under section 161 IPC and section 5 (1) (b) Prevention of Corruption Act by order dated 27-10-1978 passed by Special Judge (V Additional Sessions Judge) Bijnor.

(2.) BRIEFLY stated, the case of the prosecution against the appellant was : Shibbu (PW 2), resident of village Barkala had brought under cultivation some Khadar land of river Ganges within tie limits of his village. He moved an application before the Sub Divisional Officer for getting his name recorded on the said land. The Sub-Divisional Officer passed order in his favour. Shibbu contacted the two predecessors of the appellant to get his name recorded in the khatauni but to no result. He gave Rs. 90/- to the appellant in the summer season of the year 1976. He gave a further sum of Rs. 50/- to the appellant in the winter season of the year 1976-77. But the appellant did not take any steps in the matter. On 15-8-1977 the appellant demanded Rs. 150/- more from Shibbu promising to do his work. The appellant agreed to take Rs. 50/- on 16-8-77 and the remaining sum later on. Shibbu then gave an application to the Collector on 16-8-1977. Under the orders of the Collector, Sri Som Dutt Tyagi, Vigilance Inspector, Bijnor laid a trap. A sum of Rs. 50/- was passed to the appellant by Shibbu near the shop of Mateen in the market of Bijnor on 16-8-1977 at 2.45 p. m. Som Dutt Tyagi then apprehended the appellant and took him to police station Kotwali and lodged a written report at 6.10 p. m.

(3.) IN the lower Court an application for bail was moved on behalf of the appellant by Sri Krishna Kumar Bhatnagan, Advocate . IN this application it was submitted that the applicant had taken the sum of Rs. 50/-. But a different reason for taking the money was given out. The Court examined Krishna Kumar Bhat- nagar, Advocate (CW 1) to prove the bail application. Sri Bhatnagar stated that the appellant had not given him instructions to move the bail application. Therefore, the contents of the bail application were not binding upon the appellant.