PANDURANG LAXMAN PARAB ACCUSED Vs. STATE OF BOMBAY

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal filed by the accused who has been convicted for an offence under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo six months' rigorous imprisonment.

(2.) THE case of the prosecution was that the accused was at the material time a watchman or a mukaddam in the employ of the Bombay Port Trust. The complainant, one Gulabrao Jagdale, is a driver of a bullock cart which belongs to his master, one Govind Mali. He used to stay in the Lokhandi Jatha, an area which belongs to the Bombay Port Trust. It appears that he has his family which consists of three members at Satara. The complainant used to drive the bullock cart on hire and every day he used to give an account of the earnings which he made by driving the bullock cart. The accused told the complainant not to keep the bullock cart in the Lokhandi Jatha. He told that if the complainant did not give an amount of Rs. 10 per month as bribe, he would make a report to his superior officers and see that he was prevented from keeping his bullock cart in that area. The complainant agreed to pay an amount of Rs. 10 per month and it is stated for the prosecution that he made two such payments in the months of June and July. On 21-8-1956, the accused asked for an amount of Rs. 10 as instalment for the month of August. The complainant, however, had no money with him and he paid only an amount of Re. 1/- to him and promised that he would pay the balance of Rs. 9 in a couple of days thereafter. On 22-8-1957, the complainant approached the Anti Corruption Branch. His complaint was recorded. In the evening at 5 P. M. the complainant went to the accused and told him that he would pay the amount at 5 p. m. on 23-8-1957. On 23-8-1957 the complainant was given an amount of Rs. 9/-in the presence of the panchas. They were marked currency notes. Pandurang Nagu, a panch, was directed by the Police to accompany the complainant and to see and hear what would take place between the complainant and the accused person. The complainant and the panch went and sat on an otla in the Lokhandi Jatha. In the meanwhile, a fountain pen hawker went near them. The panch wanted to purchase a fountain pen from the hawker. The bargain was struck at Re. 1/ -. He, however, had a two-rupee currency note and the vendor had no change. So both the vendor and the panch went away for obtaining change. In the meanwhile, at about 5. 15 p. m. the accused came there and demanded the money from the complainant. The complainant gave him Rs. 8/ -. The accused put the money in his pocket. Just then the complainant made a signal to the raiding party and the raiding party came there and asked the accused to produce the notes which had been paid to him by the complainant. Upon this, the investigation started and the case came up before the Special Judge for trial. The accused pleaded not guilty to the charge. He admitted having received the money, but he did not receive it as a bribe or illegal gratification, but it was a loan which was returned by the complainant. He was pressing for the return of the loan and due to his insistence upon the payment of the loan, there were some quarrels and as a result of these quarrels, the complainant had put up this false case against him.

(3.) THE learned trial Judge referred to the fact that at the material time when the panch was expected to see what was taking place between the complainant and the accused, the panch was not at the spot. He remained absent. He had gone out to have a change for the payment of the price of the fountain pen which he purchased from the hawker. The learned Judge was also not inclined to believe the complainant, but the learned trial Judge took into consideration the fact that the money was got produced from the accused and in the view of the learned trial Judge that enabled him to raise a presumption against the accused under S. 4 and so long as that presumption was not rebutted by the accused, the accused must be held guilty for the offence under S. 161 read with S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accordingly, he convicted and sentenced the accused as stated above.