PRAKASH CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Prakash Chand Jain took charge on 8. 3. 1961 as the Cane Development Inspector, a public servant, at Meerut. He was also the ex-officio joint Secretary of the Cane Development Council of Maliana in 1961, and, in this capacity, be had to deal with cases in which coltivators applied for subsidies for constructing tube well for irrigating their fields. It was the policy of the Government to encourage sugarcane cultivation by granting subsidies. Every applicant for a subsidy bad to deposit Rs. 300 as security at the time of making the application. Applications could be granted by the Maliana Council. The subsidy could go upto Rs. 2000 for amounts spent on constructing a well upto Rs. 12,000. The well to be subsidized had to be constructed within the period fixed by the Council. It has to be inspected and the work done had to be approved and vouchers of expenses incurred had to be checked before the Council could pass a resolution for the payment of the subsidy. The subsidies had to be disbursed through the appellant as the Joint Secretary of the Council.

(2.) KHAZAN Singh (P. W. 1), a cultivator, had applied on 15. 7. 1960 for the grant of a subsidy to him for constructing a tube well in village Salarpur where he resided. He had made the required deposit of security money and had to complete the work by 15. 2. 1961. On 28. 2. 1961, he had filed the vouchers for expenses upto Rs. 8642-82 P. and had applied for the approval of his tube well after inspection. The time given to Khazan Singh had been extended upto 31. 3. 1961 on which date the vouchers were checked by Sri R. K. Bharadwaj (P. W. 8 ). On that very date, that is to say on 31. 3. 1961, the Maliana Council had passed a resolution sanctioning the payment of the subsidies to a number of persons, including Khazan Singh, provided the work was found in order. The resolution had been passed on the recommendation of Gay an Chand Supervisor and the appellant as the Joint Secretary of the Council. Sri Gupta (P. W. 6), the Senior Cane Development Inspector, had, however, raised certain fresh objections when the case for the disbursement of the amount to Khazan Singh was put up before him after the inspection of Khazan Bingh's tuba well on 31. 3. 1961 by Sri Mathur, the Cane Production Inspector. The prosecution case is that Khazan Singh went to the appellant as a result of his difficulties and the appellant told him that Khazan Singh will have to pay Rs. 500 if he wanted payment of his subsidy a) a result of the resolution of 31. 3. 1961. If a subsidy was not shown to have been paid by 31. 3. 1961 the subsidy granted would lapse for that year. Hence, the desperate hurry to complete everything by 31. 3. 1961, and, when that could not be done, the cultivator was left at the mercy of the officers in the Cane Development Department. These officers then managed to show that the payment of the subsidy was made on 31. 3. 1961 even though the cheques were actually disbursed later. In the case of Khazan Singh the cheque was alleged to have been handed over on 19. 4. 1961 although shown to have been paid on 31. 3. 1961. It is alleged that the appellant showed Khazan Singh the way in which the objections to the payment of the subsidy to him could be removed and that Khazan Singh was made to pay Rs. 200 immediately and promised to pay Rs. 300 after, wards as a consideration for services rendered. It is alleged that the receipt for the security deposit (Ex. Ka. 1) was actually signed over a revenue stamp by Khazan Singh and handed over to the appellant on 31. 3. 1961 when the agreement for the payment of the balance of Rs. 300 towards the bribe was arrived at Khuzan Singh, however, felt very disgruntled over having to pay Rs. 300 more after having paid Rs. 200. He alleged that he went to the appellant next day and wanted the appellant to accept Rs. 200 more only, but the appellant agreed, after bargaining, to reduce the bribe by not more than 50 so that Khazan Singh had to agree to pay Rs. 250 more within a few days.

(3.) AS Khazan Singh felt very dissatisfied with the whole affair, he went to Ranvir Singh (PW. 2), who was residing at Meerut, and informed him of the demand made by the appellant, ON Ranbir Singh's advice, an application (Ex Ka. 3) was drafted and submitted to the Anti-Corruption Dy. S. P. (Complaints), Sri Sheoraj Singh (P. W. 10), who arranged a trap to eat A the appellant red handed According to the prosecution case Khazan Singh went to the office of the accused, inside the Maliana Sugar Mill at about 4 p. m. on 25. 4. 1961, and after about an hour, came out with the appellant on a public road and moved towards a railway crossing a short distance away after taking a packet of notes for Rs. 250 from his brother Bhagwan Singh (P. W. 3 who was waiting at the gate of the Mill. As Khazan Singh proceeded with the appellant towards the level crossing, followed by Bhagwan Singh (P. W. 3), the other witnesses of the trap, Sheoraj Singh (P. W. 10) the Dy. S. P. in plain clothes. Ranbir Singh (P. W. 2), and Rukhan Singh (P. W. 4) came near and followed closely behind go that they could overhear the conversation between Khazan Singh and the appellant clearly. It is alleged that they heard Khazan Singh telling the appellant that he had already paid Rs. 200 and that the appellant had been good enough to let off Rs. 50 so that Rs. 250, which was the balance left, waa being paid to the appellant. Khazan Singh aho asked the appellant to return hia signed security deposit receipt (Ex Ka. 1 ). It is alleged that the appellant; took the bundle of Rs. 10 notes, amounting to Us 250, and put it in the left pocket of his bush shirt. Immediately after that, Shecraj Singh (P. W. 10) came up and Caught hold of the hand of the appellant and revealed his identity. It is alleged that Phool Singh, constable in uniform, who had been directed to keep himself at acme distance on She busy road in front of the mill then came up and the jeep of the Dy. S. P. was brought from across the railway line. The appellant, who had been arrested, was made to sit in the jeep. It is alleged that the recovery memo (Ex. Ka. 4), in which the ten rupee notes totaling Rs. 250/- are mentioned individually by their numbers, and the security deposit receipt (Ex. Ka. 1) and a sum of Rs. 4916/-, in addition are all shown as having been recovered from the appellant, was prepared on the spot and a copy of it given to the appellant who signed the recovery memo. The numbers of the ten rupee notes mentioned in the recovery memo tallied with the numbers already taken down in the application (Ex. Ka 3) made before the trap was put into operation. The Binge Coordination Officer of the Co-operative Case Development Council in Maliana, Sri Babu Ram Singh (P. W. 5), who had been sent for, by means of a telephone call, actually came to the spot and saw the writing work going on and was informed of what hid actually taken place. The appellant said nothing in front of him in answer to the charge. This was the prosecution case against the appellant which has been believed by the learned Special Judge who tried it. The appellant was convicted under Section 161, I. P. C. und sentenced to two year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, and. in default, to undergo further R. I. for a period of six months. The appellate was also convicted under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo two years R. I. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently.