ABDUL KARIM Vs. STATE OF U P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) SURYA Prasad, J. This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 1982 passed by the then learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Nainital in Special Trial No. 1 of 1980 - State v. Abdul Karim, convicting him under Section 161 I. P. C. and sentencing him to one year's Rigorous Imprisonment there under and further convicting him under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to one and half year's Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/- and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant Sri Pritam Singh had purchased a land measuring 30 bighas 10 biswas situate in village Jungle Jogikher, police station Khatima, district Nainital from Sardar Amar Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Agya Kaur through a sale-deed dated 29th March, 1978. On the basis of that sale-deed, Smt. Agya Kaur moved an application in the Court of Tahsildar, Khatima, district Naimtal for mutation of her name over the aforesaid land. It is alleged that the accused who was posted as Registrar Kanungo demanded a sum of Rs. 200 as illegal gratification from the complainant Pritam Singh for recording the statements of the witnesses, who were to be examined by him in connection with the mutation case. THE complainant did not want to pay the said sum of money, but he intended to get him caught red-handed while paying the same to him. With this and in view he met the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Barailly and moved an application for the aforesaid purpose before him. THE Superin tendent of Police, Vigilance called the Trap Inspector Ranvijay Singh at his residence and directed him to lay a trap in regard to the above matter. He also passed an order to that effect on the application (Ext. Ka-7) itself. THE Trap Inspector subsequently organised the trap and directed complainant to hand two currency notes over to the accused-appellant Abdul Karim. It is further alleged that the complainant had handed two currency notes (Exts. I and II) over to the accused- appellants in a room of the aforesaid Tahsil where the appellant-accused was sitting. It is further alleged that the accused-appellant had actually taken these notes and kept them into his Mutthi from which the Vigilance Inspector subsequently recovered them. It is further alleged that Fard recovery was prepared by the Vigilance Inspector (Ext. 9) on the spot. THEreafter he went to the Police Station along with the accused and lodged a first information report there in regard to the incident. On that basis a chick report was prepared and a case was registered. THE investigation ensued. After the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a charge-sheet against the accused.

(3.) HAVING heard the learned counsel for the parties and having consi dered the evidence on the record, the learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant accused vide his impugned judgement and order referred to above. Aggrieved, the appellant-accused preferred this appeal against the same.