SUGAN CHAND Vs. STATE OF U.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE Appellant Sugan Chand who was convicted and Under Section 161, I.P.C. and Under Section 5(1) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, vide judgment and order dated 10.12.1979 passed by Sri. G.R.S. Tandon the then IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar was sentenced to undergo R.I. for a period of 1 year and a fine of Rs. 500/ - and in default of payment of fine further undergo R.I. for 6 months on the first count and two years R.I. on the second count, has come up in appeal before this Court.

(2.) THE prosecution case is that the accused Appellant was working as a village Lekhpal of village Thanha Bhawan Kasba Jalalabad, district Muzaffarnagar in the year 1977. An application for demarcation of plot of Sri. Jag Ram, a farmer of village Jalalabad., came for enquiry before the accused Appellant. The accused Appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 500/ - as illegal gratification from the farmer, Jag Ram. Jag Ram made a complaint about this matter to the Superintendent of Police, Muzaffarnagar. The Superintendent of Police Muzaffarnagar referred the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Branch, at Meerut. Sri. Laxmi Narain Shukla, P.W. 1, who was then working as Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption Branch Meerut circle Meerut, laid a trap on 12.2.1977 at about 10 a.m. in Kasba Jalalabad district Muzaffarnagar and caught the accused Appellant Sugan Chand red -handed while accepting a Sum of Rs. 500/ - from the complainant Rag Ram. The currency notes of Rs. 500/ - which were earlier signed by Dy. S.P. Anti Corruption were duly recovered from the possession of the accused Appellant. The accused was accordingly prosecuted and convicted as aforesaid. Aggrieved by the judgment and order of the learned IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Muzaffarnagar, he has come in appeal before this Court.

(3.) IT was urged on behalf of the Appellant that the Appellant did not demand any illegal gratification from the complainant Jag Ram. The currency notes of Rs. 500/ - which are said to have been recovered from the possession of the Appellant were, infact, the amount which the complainant had given to the accused Appellant for being deposited in Small Savings. Learned Counsel for the Appellant has contended before me that the accused Appellant had proved his defence by the probability of the case and that the learned Court below has grossly erred in discarding the version of the accused -Appellant.