HARI OM SAXENA Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) K. K. Birla, J. Appellant Hari Om Scxena has been convicted for the offence under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The appellant was Soil Conservation Officer, Ghatampur, District Kanpur. Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) who was the Contractor, had done the work of levelling the land under the contract. He was to receive Rs. 1575,00 for the first work order, Rs. 851. 00 for the second work order, Rs, 756. 00 for the third work order and Rs. 988. 40 for the fourth work order, total Rs 4170. 40 P. , Sri Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) was one of the Assistant Soil Conservation Inspector working under the appellant. The prosecution case is that the appellant had insisted his subordinate that he will permit payments of the contractors only on payment of commission of 3% to him. In the case of Mewa Lal as well, he insisted Budh Pal Singh that the payment of the contract will he made only on his getting 3% commission. Budh Pal Singh did not cooperate with the appellant in the practise and the appellant as such got him earlier transferred to other places and used to harass him. When the appellant did not agree to pass the bills of Mewa Lal, Budh Pal Singh and Mewa Lal planned to get the appellant caught red-handed when accepting bribe. Accordingly, Budh Pal Singh moved an application Ext. Ka 3 signed by Mewa Lal as well to the Superintendent of Police (Vigilance) Kanpur, in which numbers of the notes to be given as bribe were also mentioned. A trap was then laid. These notes, namely, one of Rs. 100. 00 two of Rs. 10. 00 and one of Rs 5. 00 denomination were treated with Phenolphthale powder. Due formalities were done and the notes were given to Mewa Lal. On 13th July 1976 Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. (Vigilance), who was the incharge of the raiding party, reached to the Canal Inspection House, Ghatampur alongwith Inspector Surya Bhan Singh Chauhan (P. W. 4) and other police personnels. Public witnesses were also obtained.

(2.) AT about 11. 00 a. m. Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. (Vigilence) reached the office of the Soil Conservation Officer. He had formed four parties. They took possession out side the office. Budh Pal Singh (P. W. 2) and Mewa Lal (P. W. 3) went inside the office. Mewa Lal requested the appellant to pass the bills as he badly needed money for the tehrahim 13th day of death ceremony of his uncle which was to take place on the same day. The appellant enquired from Budh Pal Singh as to whether he had paid the commission or not. Rs. 125. 00 were given by Mewa Lal to Budh Pal Singh who in turn handed them over to the appellant. The appellant kept the money in his pocket. AT that very time the police party entered the office. Sri. R. N. Pandey then searched the accused and found those notes, besides three more Rs. 10. 00 note and other articles with him. Recovery Memo Ext. Ka 18 was prepared on the spot. The accused was taken to the police station. After investigation by Sri Bahadur Singh (P. W. 5) charge-sheet was submitted. The prosecution examined the above three witnesses about the incident. Sri R. N. Pandey, Dy. S. P. had died and could not be produced. After sanction, the appellant was tried for the aforesaid offence.

(3.) FROM the evidence it is clear that a trap was made and Rs. 155. 00 were recovered, out of which Rs. 125. 00 were treated with phenolphthale powder. It has been contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that from the evidence and circumstances of the case it is clear that a case is framed against the appellant by Budh Pal Singh and Mewa Lal and in fact, this amount was given by Mewa Lal towards security. Certain circumstances have been pointed out to discredit the prosecution evidence also to show that the appellant's version was probable.