RAM CHARAN BHATT Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Ram Charan Bhatt is directed against an order of the learned Special Judge, Allahabad whereby the appellant was found guilty of the offences under Section 161 of I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and was sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year and each of the aforesaid offences. The appellant was further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 100 and, in default of payment of fine, to undergo further R. I. for a period of two months. The sentences of imprisonment on the two counts were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE appellant was the Secretary of the Nyaya Panchayat of village Purkhas at the material date. One Balai P. W. 5, a maternal cousin of Bhatrodin, P. W. 2, had applied for being granted a loan for the digging of a well in village Benpur Kataiya, P. S. Sarai Aqil. A sum of Rs. 750 was ordered to be advanced as a loan to the aforesaid Balai and a cheque for Rs. 400 as the first instalment of the aforesaid loan was issued to the Block Development Officer, Newada for being handed over to the applicant. Bhairodin, P. W. 2, who was also interested in the aforesaid loan, along with Balai went to the Block Development Officer, Newada on 30-3-1962 for taking delivery of the cheque. The Block Development Officer wanted identification of the applicant either by the Gram Sewak or by the Secretary, Nyaya Panchayat. The Gram Sewak happened to be present at that time but he did not know the applicant and declined to Identify him. Balai and Bhairodin, accordingly, went to the appellant who demanded 15 per cent, of the amount of the cheque as his remuneration and ultimately the bargain was struck at 10 per cent of the amount of the cheque and the applicant agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 40 to the appellant. The appellant went to the office of the Block Development Officer and identified the applicant. The Block Development Officer handed over the cheque for Rs. 400 to the applicant on 1-4-1962. It was agreed that the appellant will also be present at the time when the applicant will present the cheque for being cashed. On 3-4-1962 the, applicant and the appellant left for Tahsil Chail at Allahabad. Bhairodin, P. W. 2 approached the District Magistrate, Allahabad and apprised him of the fact that the appellant was demanding a sum of Rs. 40 as illegal gratification. Sri Mahabir Saran Das, P. W. 1, the then District Magistrate of Allahabad took four currency notes of the value of Rs. 10 each from the aforesaid Bhairodin and after noting down their numbers handed them over to Sri Shyam Sanehi P. W. 9 the then Dy. S. P. (Complaints), Allahabad and instructed him to accompany Bhairodin and to search the person of the appellant if the sum of Rs. 40 was accepted by him and to submit his report thereafter. Accordingly Sri Shyam Sanehi returned the aforesaid currency notes to Bhairodin with the direction that he should signal to him as soon as payment had been made. Bhairodin went to Tahsil Chail and learnt that the cheque had been encashed. The appellant was also present there along with the applicant. Bhairodin returned from there and informed Sri Shyam Sanehi that the payment would be made at Kedar's hotel opposite the Tahsil compound. Thereafter he went to the Tahsil Office and in the company of the applicant and the appellant went to Kedar's hotel and paid a sum of Rs. 40 to the appellant. On a signal given by him Sri Shyam Sanehi went inside the aforesaid hotel and enquired of the appellant if he had accepted any sum as bribe. The appellant denied having done so and thereafter Sri Shyam Sanehi searched the appellant's person and recovered from the pocket of the shirt which he was wearing four Government currency notes of the value of Rs. 10 each. The numbers of those notes tallied with the numbers of the currency notes noted down by the District Magistrate. A recovery memo was prepared and the recovered currency notes were initialled by Sri Kulshreshtha and Sri Kali Prasad Srivastava as witnesses to the recovery. A copy of the recovery memo was handed over to the appellant. Sri Shyam Sanehi submitted his report to the District Magistrate, investigated into the case and submitted a charge sheet against the appellant.

(3.) THE appellant pleaded not guilty. He admitted that four currency notes of the value of Rs. 10 each were recovered from his possession by Sri Shyam Sanehi. The case put forward by him was that Bhairodin had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40 from him in the month of March last and had promised to repay the same on the following day. On the next day, the appellant demanded repayment of the loan but Bhairodin said that he would repay it later on. About six days prior to the incident under consideration a quarrel took place between the appellant and Bhairodin as the latter had not repaid the loan till then. As a result of intervention by some persons of the village Bhairodin agreed to repay a sum of Rs. 40 out of the sum of Rs. 400 which was to be paid to Balai as loan. On 3-4-1962 Bhairodin informed the appellant that his brother will get the cheque encashed at Allahabad and out of the proceeds of the cheque he would repay the loan. The appellant, accordingly, accompanied the applicant Balai to Allahabad and was repaid the amount of the loan. In support of the aforesaid version the appellant examined two witnesses, Mohammad Yaqub and Chhedi Lal. The former is the Sarpanch of Purkhas Nyaya Panchayat. He stated that about 9 1/2 months back Bhairodin and the appellant went to his place and the latter complained that Bhairodin had not repaid the loan which he had incurred about three months earlier although he had promised to repay it on the day following the incurring of the loan. The appellant also told him that although he had advanced a sum of Rs. 40 as loan Bhairodin admitted to have received a sum of Rs. 30 only. He enquired of Bhairodin if he had borrowed a sum of Rs. 40 but the latter admitted to have borrowed a sum of Rs. 80 only. He asked Bhairodin to state on oath but he declined to take oath and thereat he told Bhairodin to repay a sum of Rs. 40 and to that he agreed and stated that repayment would be made out of the loan which would be advanced to his cousin Balai. Chhedi Lal, D W. 2 is a resident of village Purkhas. He stated that about 9 1/2 months back he had gone to the office of the Sub-Registrar for getting a document registered and came across Bhairodin at the Tahsil who told him that he had to return a sum of Rs. 40 to the appellant and requested him to be a witness to the payment. Thereat he and Yaqub went with Bhairodin under a Neem tree near the Tahsil and there Bhairodin paid a sum of Rs. 40 to the appellant. The learned Special Judge was not impressed well with the aforesaid testimony mainly on the grounds that the witnesses were of a partisan character and the statement made by Chhedi Lal D. W. 2 that the sum of Rs. 40 was paid by Bhairodin to the appellant under the Neem tree ran counter to the admission made by the appellant that the said sum was paid inside Kedar's hotel. The learned Special Judge accepted the prosecution version of the incident and convicted and sentenced the appellant as indicated in the foregoing portion of this order