KAILASH NARAIN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant was the Lekhpal of Jattari Circle, district Aligarh. Village Bajhera was within his circle. The complainant Natthi Lal had his holdings in Village Bajhera. He was allotted land in consolidation proceedings but he thought that the area of the land was less than what it should have been. He made an application to the Qanungo for the measurement of the land. It was rejected by the Qanungo. It was alleged by him that he had asked the appellant Kailash Narain to measure the land and the latter had asked him to pay him Rs. 25. Natthi Lal made a report to the District Magistrate and eventually a trap was laid by S.O. Tappal on Aug. 12, 1964 at about 6.30 p.m. and the appellant was said to have been caught after he had accepted Rs. 25/- as illegal gratification from Nathi Lal. The appellant did not deny that he had received Rs. 25/- from Natthi Lal but contended that it was an amount which had been paid to him by one Ratan Singh through Natthi Lal and it had nothing to do with any illegal gratification. He produced Ratan Singh in support of the contention. The latter stated that the appellant had given him Rs. 30.00 for supplying wheat to him. When the appellant heard that he had been transferred to another circle he asked Ratan Singh to give back the money that had been given to him. Ratan Singh was unable to pay at the time but told the appellant that he would send the money to the appellant later. He sent Rs. 25/- through Natthi Lal and Rs. 5/- was still due from Ratan Singh. The court below rejected the defence evidence mainly on the ground that Natthi Lal had no reason to falsely implicate the appellant.

(2.) Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the appellant had been transferred from his post in Jattari Circle and had handed over charge on Aug. 8, 1964 to another Lekhpal. Thus on Aug. 12, 1964 the appellant was not the Lekhpal of Jattari Circle and he had no more to do with the affairs of Natthi Lal With regard to the area of the Chak allotted to him. Learned counsel argued that under these circumstances it could not be said that any amount was given to the appellant by Natthi Lal for doing or for bearing from doing any official act. Natthi Lal admitted that after he was unable to obtain redress from the Qanungo he had made a complaint against him to the higher authorities. He, however, stated that he did not know that the appellant had been transferred. It is difficult to believe that Natthi Lal could have been in dark about the transfer of the appellant to another Circle. Learned counsel contended that no application of Nathhi Lal was pending for re-measurement of his chak and under these circumstances the appellant could not be asked to measure the land in any official capacity and more so when he had been transferred from the Circle. He relied on a decision of this court in Bechey Lal Vs. State AIR 1952 Allahabad 667. It was observed therein :

(3.) Applying the aforesaid principle it would follow that since the appellant had been transferred to another Circle and he had nothing more to do with the question of re-measurement of the area of the Chak allotted to Natthi Lal, and, if under the circumstances Natthi Lal had asked him to take measurements of his land, the demand made by the appellant for being remunerated for his services could not amount to illegal gratification for doing or for bearing any official act. Learned counsel for the State was unable to show any provision of rule which disentitled a Lekhpal from asking for remuneration for any service that he rendered beyond his official duties. Suppose a person has a grove in a rural area and is anxious to get its exact measurements. He asks a Lekhpal of another circle to get it measured for him. Could it be said that by asking or accepting the remuneration for rendering service to such a grove holder the Lekhpal was accepting any illegal gratification for doing an official act ? Even if a Lekhpal is not permitted to render such services, then in that case departmental action can be taken against him but that too hardly comes within the ambit of Sec. 161 I.P.C.