MAQBOOLUDDIN Vs. REX

JUDGEMENT

(1.) These are two connected revisions against the convictions and sentences passed against the applicants Under Section 161, Penal Code. The case for the prosecution was that in June 1947, one Moizuddin found that a mare, which he had lost about two years before, was yoked to an ekka, which was being driven by one Buddhu. He stopped the ekka and asked Buddhu from where he had got the mare. Buddhu told him that he had bought it from one Sharda. A report was thereupon made to Maqbuluddin, head constable, at the George Town outpost. Maqbuluddin, according to the prosecution, approached Sharda and demanded a bribe and threatened Sharda that if he did not pay the money he would be prosecuted for theft of the mare. Sharda was the tenant of one Ganesh Dutt. Ganesh Dutt, Sharda and Vachaspati Tripathi, head clerk in the District Supply Office, decided to lay a trap and informed the Additional District Magistrate, Mr. D.S. Rathor that Maqbuluddin was demanding bribe. The Magistrate had a trap laid and Yar Mohammad, the applicant in Criminal Revision No. 141, was caught red-handed by the Magistrate with the marked notes in the house of Brij Nandan Sahu, where the bribe was paid. Yar Mohammad, on his arrest, stated that he was innocent and that he had been sent by the head constable to collect the money which the head constable had stated was an outstanding debt due from Ganesh Dutt to the head constable.

(2.) The learned Magistrate, Mr. Brij Beharilal, convicted the accused and sentenced the head constable, Maqbuluddin, to two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/- and Yar Mohammad to 18 months' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 60/-. Two appeals were filed before the learned Sessions Judge. The learned Sessions Judge has accepted the evidence of the witnesses for the prosecution and maintained the convictions and the sentences.

(3.) On behalf of Yar Mohammad nothing is said on the merits. Learned counsel has, however, advanced two arguments. He has urged that Yar Mohammad was wrongly convicted Under Section 161, Penal Code and that he could be convicted only Under Section 213, Penal Code. Section 161 deals with cases of public servants taking gratification other than legal remuneration in respect of an official act, while Section 213 deals with other cases of receiving money to screen an offender from punishment. The argument of the learned counsel is that Yar Mohammad was a police constable attached to the George Town outpost while Sharda was a resident of Colonelganj, and, therefore, Yar Mobammad could not be convicted Under Section 161, Penal Code. This argument is clearly misconceived. George Town outpost is under the police station Colonelganj, and is a part thereof, but apart from that the mere fact that a constable is posted at a particular police outpost does not make him cease to be a public servant when he is dealing with a man resident of another outpost. Both Maqbooluddin and Yar Mohammad were police officers and were acting as such and they were, there, fore, clearly guilty Under Section 161, Penal Code.