STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH Vs. HAR NARAYAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is the State appeal against the acquittal of the accused Raghubir Singh (patwari) of the offence under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 50 )(a) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; and of the co-accused Harnarayan (Naib Tahsildar), under section 165 of the Indian Penal Code.

(2.) During the relevant period i.e. during September 1975 till the date of the alleged raid 20-10-75, the accused Harnarayan Khare was the Naib Tahsildar, Rehli having jurisdiction over Patwari Circle No. 17 Kasal Pipariya wherein the principal accused Raghubir Singh was posted as Patwari. One Bhagwandas, who had moved for the trap, had purchased some lands from Laxmanrao vide the two sale-deeds dated 21-6-75, partly in his own name and partly in the name of his minor son Ramshankar. Raghubirsingh, at the instance of Bhagwan Das, had registered his case for mutation in Sanshodhan Panji on 6.875. Bhagwandas had been noticed to appear on 13.9.75 in the Camp Court of Naib Tahsildar Harnarayan Khare at Renjha. In the matter of this mutation case, he had appeared before the Naib Tahsildar in his Camp Court. Patwari Raghubirsingh was also present and the Naib Tahsildar had dismissed the case by making a note in the Sanshodhan Panji (Article Q) that the vendor was not present and his written consent was necessary to be called.

(3.) The case of the prosecution in brief was that some time before the holding of the Camp Court on the particular date i.e. on 13.9.75, Patwari Raghubirsingh had asked Bhagwandas to pay him the bribe of Rs. 200/- to be passed on to the Naib Tahsildar Khare who would certify the mutation only after the said bribe amount was received by him. This fact was also apprised to him by Khare himself at the time when his case was dismissed. Being aggrieved, Bhagwandas submitted a written application dated 18.10.75 to the Commissioner, Sagar Division for arranging the trap against these two accused persons who were demanding the bribe amount for performance of their duties which they were enjoined to perform as public servants in their respective capacities. Trap was accordingly laid. It was alleged that on the suggestion of the Patwari Raghubirsingh, Bhagwandas was to meet him at village Patna on 20.10.75 for payment of the bribe. Police raiding party, headed by Ram Charan Garg, Dy. Superintendent of Police, and accompanied with the Panch witnesses, arrived in the village Patna and sat in Hotel of Prabhudayal, awaiting the arrival of Patwari who did come there and sat there for a while. Later, Bhagwandas also came and then, both Bhagwandas and the Patwari proceeded together towards a nearby house of one Nathuram. Patwari sat on the platform of the varandah. Bhagwandas gave him the sale-deeds and so also the marked currency notes worth Rs. 200/- which had been treated with Phenolphthalein powder. The bribe amount was kept by Patwari on the ground by his side. The police raiding party, on getting the signal, rushed to the place but the Patwari, sensing the trap, threw away the currency notes on the other side of the will adjoining the varandah/Chabutara. Dy. S. P., Garg seized, the marked currency notes from the place where they had been thrown. Patwaris hands were got washed in the solution of Sodium Carbonate and the washed water was found to turn into pink colour. After due investigation, both the respondents-accused were put up for trial. They claimed to be falsely implicated. The trial Court, in face of the mutual contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and so also the inconsistencies in the evidence of these witnesses on being confronted with their earlier police statements; and the written report, came to hold the view that Bhagwandass whole story in the matter of the demand of bribe both by the Patwari and the Naib Tahsildar? was not worth reliance. Accordingly, both these accused were acquitted of the respective offences. Hence now, the present appeal.