STATE OF M.P. Vs. RANJEETSINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is a State appeal from the judgment of acquittal of the two respondents dated 31 -8 -1959 recorded by the Special Judge, Ujjain, in a case arising out of an incident in 1955. The prosecution account is long and wandering and covers several incidents in course of a fortnight; but the culminating point, which is the subject -matter of the charges respectively under section 161, Indian Penal Code and 161/109, Indian Penal Code, is that the respondent No. 1 Ranjeetsingh who at the relevant time was the Sub -Inspector second in charge of the Mahidpur thana, in the Ujjain District, received an illegal gratification of 100 (in ten marked currency notes of 10 each) at about 4 p.m. on 21 -12 -1955 at his quarters adjoining the Mahidpur Station House. The alleged giver of the bribe was one Thawarsingh of village kheda in the Makdone thana; but the amount was handled by Shivsingh, Thawarsingh's brother -in -law and a licensee for sale of liquor, along with respondent No. 2 through whom, acting as the go between in this regard, the amount was actually paid. The alleged process of receiving it was the throwing of the bundle of 10 currency notes on the lap of Ranjeetsingh by the respondent No. 2 with an accompanying gesture, when, he was sitting in a cane chair in his room. Subsequently he lifted the bundle and put it below his seat only to be recovered from him soon after, when a search party headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police Ramnarayan Dube and one Laximinarayan alias Gorubhaiya -Secretary of Tahsil Congress Committee, walked into the room on a signal being given by Shiv Singh at the first instance and picked up and transmitted by Devisingh. This was after an unsuccessful search of the person of Ranjeetsingh by Laxminarayan; but when two of the searching party lifted the Sub -Inspector bodily, the bundle of notes was discovered on the cane chair seat. The alleged consideration for the bribe was that Ranjeetsingh had made Thawarsingh and his friends believe that he was in possession of a warrant for the arrest of Thawarsingh issued by a Court at Agar and for reasons which are nowhere indicated, endorse to him, an officer of Mahidpur, while the alleged warrantee was living in a village in the Makdone thana, and was agreeing to forbear from executing it, and, instead, to tearing and throwing it away. For reasons recorded by him, the learned special Judge refused to hold that the notes were ever taken by Ranjeetsingh or were ever in his possession or recovered from him, or that Bherusingh -respondent No. 2 abetted by aiding the receipt of the bribe. Accordingly, he acquitted both. The case is of special interest as showing that the mere marking of notes or property is not the magic formula for detection, and the neglect of ordinary precaution making a planting very probable.

(2.) EVEN apart from the merits of the allegations and counter -allegations, the learned Government Advocate has urged, to begin with, that the learned special Judge has acted with an inconsistency bordering on "perverse"; because, he has found as a fact that the respondent No. 1 went to the place of Thawarsingh and demanded the bribe and actually made it appear though it was not true that there was a warrant for his arrest. Whether or not the gratification was actually paid, it is urged that the finding in regard to the demand would itself justify a conviction under section 161, Indian Penal Code because that applies to a public servant: -

(3.) NO doubt, the charge is in terms about the actual acceptance of the gratification as motive for forbearing from executing the warrant of arrest, and tearing it away and similarly of abetting by aiding the actual receipt by the principal offender of the gratification; but it is argued on behalf of the State that, on these materials, a charge of attempting to obtain the gratification could have been framed, and that this case is one without prejudice; therefore on the factual findings recorded by the learned special Judge himself, he ought to have convicted the respondent No. 1 at all events for the offence of attempting to obtain and Bherusingh for abetting such attempt.