GULAB SINGH Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the accused who has been convicted by the learned Special Judge Nanded, under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. , for each of which offences he has been sentenced to one year's regorous imprisonment and the sentences are directed to run concurrently.

(2.) THE accused held the post of a Station Master at Bhokar Railway Station on the Central Railway. As such Station Master, he had also to perform the duties of booking goods for transport by railway either in wagon loads or in smaller loads. It was alleged by one Deorao Sambhaji that he used to send foodgrains to several places from Bhokar, that on every ocasion whenever he was allotted a wagon he paid Rs. 10 to the Station Master in the past. On 17th June 1959, he has requisitioned one wagon for Nanded and on 24th June 1959, he had requisitioned another wagon for Jalna. On 18th July 1959, he was assigned two wagons and he loaded both these wagons. In the wagon which was togo to Jalna he had loaded 175 bags of rice. The railway receipt that was given by the accused showed the name of onekisan as consigner. When questioned, the accused told Deorao not to worry about that. Thereafter according to Deorao not to worry about that. Thereafter according to Deorao, Abdul Nabi who was in his service, told him that the accused was demanding Rs. 20 for the two wagons which he had assigned to Deorao. The accused repeated the demand at least twice or thrice. On the last occasion, i. e. , on 31st July or 1st August 1959, Deorao sent Abdul Nabi with goods for being booked. But Abdul Nabi came and informed him that the accused was demanding Rs. 20 and told him that unless he gave that amount the goods would not be booked. Deorao then instructed Abdul Nabi to go to Nanded for contacting Anti Corruption Inspector, Deshmuckh. On 1st August 1959, Abdul Nabi lodged his complaint with Inspector Deshmukh who recorded it at about 3 p. m. Thereafter Inspector Deshmukh sent the complainant Abdul Nabi, with his report and the complaint, to the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nanded for obtaining the necessary sanction for investigation, which was duly accorded to him. A trap was then laid on 2nd August 1959. Inspector Deshmukh, Abdul Nabi, Panch Motilal and some Police Officers left Nanded for Bhokar by the morning train. They got down at an earlier Station, Therban. The first panchnama was made near the well of one Kondiba, at which the usual matters were attended to. Two currency notes of Rs. 10 each, which Abdul Nabi supplied, were smeared with anthracene powder. Thereafter all of them washed their hands and tested their hands by the ultra-violet lamp. After this, the complainant was sent towards the Station, along with two Panchas, and Inspector Deshmukh with two constables followed them and stood near a nala. Motilal, one of the Panchas, stood near a window of the room where the accused was working. The complainant went inside. Some constables are alleged to be standing somewhat outside. The other Panch Ahmad Ali went there only for a minute or two and then left for the place where Inspector Deshmukh was standing. After the amount was demanded by the accused and paid by Abdul Nabi, Abdul Nabi came out and gave a signal. Immediately the police officers and the Panchas entered the office and thereafter Inspector Deshmukh questioed the accused. His hands were examined, and the powder was found on some of his fingers. There were traces of powder on the oil-cloth on the table. The accused denied that he had taken any amount from the complainant. On being questioned, Panch Motilal told Inspector Deshmukh that he had seen the accused placing the amount in the drawer of his table. Inspector Deshmukh, therefore, opened the drawer and Motilal took out the money which was wrapped in a piece of yellow paper. All these were exmined andwere found to have anthracene powder. A panchnama was duly drawn up, a copy of which was handed over to the accused. After the investigation was completed, the accused was charge-sheeted before the Special Judge for offences under S. 161, Indian Penal Code and S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied to have committed the offence and said that he had been falsely involved becuase of enmity.

(3.) AT the trial, the accused made an application (Ex. 4) where he raised several contentions in regard to the sanction given by the learned Magistrate for investigation and contended that the proceedings were bad and, therefore, the charge-sheet should be quashed. His application was considered on m erits and the learned Judge dismissed it and set down the case for hearing. A revisional application was filed to this Court, which was dismissed on the ground that it was at an interlocutory stage and there were no special or exceptional reasons for interfering with the order. We are told that an application for special leave to appeal to the Supreme Court was rejected by this Court and an application under Article 136 (1) (c) of the Constitution was also rejected by the Supreme Court. Thereafter the learned Special Judge proceeded with the trial and held the accused guilty of the offences, as stated above.