DEONATH DUNDHNATH MISHRA Vs. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was the reader to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur from the 29th of June 1963 till the 1st of October 1963. The complainant Ibrahim, who has been holding a licence for possession and sale of explosives, had applied to the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, on the 4th of March for a renewal of the licence after adding five more villages therein. The Sub-Divisional Officer was authorized by the district magistrate, amravati, to renew such licences, but without making any alterations therein. Since an alteration was prayed for by way of inserting five other villages, the licence was forwarded to the district Magistrate, Amravati, for renewal on the terms as prayed for by Ibrahim. The licence, however, was not received back from the District Magistrate, Amravati, for several months, and Ibrahim had to go to the office of the Sub-divisional Officer, Achalpur, on about five or six occasions to get his licence, if received back. Ibrahim had met the appellant as also the predecessor of the appellant, and was given in September 1962, the details of the forwarding number by which the licence was sent to Amravati. On going to Amravati, on the 27th of September 1962 Ibrahim learnt that the licence had been sent back to the officer of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur. Ibrahim, therefore, came back to Achalpur and enquired from the appellant about the licence on the 30th of September 1963. However, the licence was not delivered that day.

(2.) THE case for the prosecution was that the appellant told Ibrahim on the 30th of september 1963 that he would give the licence immediately on its receipt if he were paid Rs. 5 by way of illegal gratification. Ibrahim ostensibly agreed to pay the amount; but did not l;ike the idea and, therefore, approached the Anti Corruption Police at Amravati on the 1st of October 1963 and gave his complaint, Exh. 8. He was sent to the Magistrate Mr. Pathak who granted permission for investigation of the offence. Thereafter, a trap was laid, as usual, and five one rupee notes which were dusted with anthracene power were handed over to Ibrahim. Later on Ibrahim returned to Achalpur in a jeep with P. S. I. Deshmukh and the two panchas, Trimbak and Makkan. Ibrahim went to the office of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Achalpur, and asked the appellant for the licence. The appellant replied that he had not seen the dak received that day and he would take action on receipt of the licence. Ibrahim then said that he was intending to go to his Desh. Thereupon, the appellant asked him to give Rs. 5 for sending the licence by post to his address after it was received. In accordance with that demand, Ibrahim paid the marked notes of Rs. 5 to the appellant in the presence of the panch Trimbak. Upon the agreed signal being given, P. S. I. Deshmukh came there and called the appellant out. He examined the hands of the appellant under the ultra-violet lamp and on finding that there were traces of anthracene power, called upon the appellant to produce the amount which he had received from Ibrahim. The appellant then took out the five marked notes and handed them over to the P. S. I. By that time, the Sub-Divisional Officer Mr. Kolhatkar was called out and he also saw the appellant giving those notes to the P. S. I. The notes were seized and their numbers were found to tally with the numbers noted in the panchanama at the time of giving them to Ibrahim after applying anthracene powder to them. The appellant was then arrested. The Collector Amravati, under whom the appellant was serving, accorded his sanction under S. 6 (1) (c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to prosecute the appellant. Accordingly, the appellant was prosecuted under S. 161, Indian Penal code and S. 5 (1) (d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) THE appellant abjured the guilt. He denied the allegations of the prosecution and contended that he was falsely implicated by Ibrahim, who was annoyed because of his not getting the licence for a long time. According to him, one Govindshing was ordered by the Sub-Divisional Officer to file certain sketches in a revenue case that day and Govindsingh who had obtained the sketches from Aziz (D. W. 2), had no time to wait and had to hand over those sketches to Ibrahim for giving them to the appellant. Accordingly, Ibrahim gave the folded sketches and the appellant never knew that any moneys were passed on in them. When the Sub-Inspector asked him to take out the articles in his pocket he had taken out all the articles including the sketches and on opening the sketches, five currency notes which were kept inside the folds fell down. He handled the notes only after the P. S. I. ordered him to do it. He had not committed any offence.