BALMUKAND Vs. STATE OF M.P.

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the conviction of the appellant/accused under section 161, Indian Penal Code, and section 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for short, the' Act), and sentence of two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000; - and, in default, to further undergo six months' imprisonment, recorded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sheopur Kalan, District Morena, in Special Criminal Case No. 3/1985, decided on 2.4.1987.

(2.) BRIEF facts leading to the case are thus; The appellant was an Assistant District Inspector of Schools (for short, 'ADI') and was posted at Karahal; private students were allowed to appear in examinations of Class Vth through Informal Institutions; PW.2 Moharsingh and PW 3 Harendrasingh Chouhan were respectively Assistant Teacher and Teacher of Semalda Haveli and Mayapur. Informal Institutions, who used to get from Government Rs. 50/ - as an incentive per private student, it was necessary for the private student to declare his date of birth as also the fact that he is not a regular student and appearing as a private candidate. Therefore, to get the amount of incentive PW.2 Moharsingh and PW 3. Harendrasingh used to take interest to see that the forms or such students are cleared and they are allowed to appear in the examination. PW.2 and PW.3 sent the forms of the private candidates of their institutions in February 1984; on scrutiny some were rejected by the appellant. Hence, the two teachers approached the District Education Officer, a superior officer of the ADI, who granted special permission on 5.4.1984 for appearing such students in the examinations which were going to begin from 11.4.1984.

(3.) PW . 5 and PW. 9 laid a trap on 10.4.1984; for that PW. 5 and PW. 9 initiated two notes of Rs. 20/ - and six notes of Rs. 10/ - each (Articles A to H), but the appellant on 10.4.1984 did not reach the place to take the amount of gratification. The examination began on 11.4.1984 at 7.00 a.m., in which all the students including those who got the special permission from District Education Officer, appeared. It is alleged that the appellant threatened to with -hold the result; hence, the balance amount of Rs. 100/ - was given by PW. 2 and PW. 3 near a flour mill of one Siddiqui Mohammad (PW. 1); there, on receipt, the notes were given by the appellant to co -accused Jagdish, who put them in his pocket. At this juncture, PW. 2 gave an indication by scratching his head, to PW. 9 Gayaprasad Mishra of the trap party, who was nearby, came and made a search of both the accused; from the pocket of co -accused Jugdish Rs. 540.30 p. including the notes (Articles A to H) were received a list of 24 students (Ext. P/8) was also recovered. In the presence of 'panchas' PW. 1 Siddique Mohammad and PW. 7 Jugraj, a seizure memo (Ext. P/8), seizing notes (Articles A to H) was prepared. Nothing was recovered from the appellant. A 'panchanama' was also prepared by PW. 5 and PW. 9 at the spot, P.W. 9 Gayaprasad Mishra lodged a first information report (Ext. P/13) at Police Station Sheopur, where a case at crime No. 78/1984 under S. 161, IPC, and S. 5 (1) (d) and (2) of the Act was registered against both the accused. After completing the investigation and obtaining sanction (Ext. P/10), signed by Upendra Nath Sahane (not examined) to prosecute the appellant, 'challan' was filed against both the accused.