MOHAMMAD RUSTAM QURESHI Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Nazul Inspector in the employment of the respondent- State, has been found guilty of offences punishable under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1)(d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act') and sentenced to one year's R.I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default of payment of fine, to a further R.I. for three months, by judgment dated 18.5.1982, passed by the Special Judge, Balaghat, in Special Criminal Case No. 2 of 1982. He feels aggrieved by his aforesaid conviction and sentence and challenges the same in this appeal filed under section 374 (2), Cr.P.C.

(2.) The appellant, while working as a public servant, was alleged to have demanded and accepted an illegal gratification of Rs. 100/- from the complainant Vakilchand (P.W. 1) on 30.3.1981 as a consideration for giving a no objection certificate to him, to enable him to construct his house. Since he had earlier taken an illegal bribe of Rs. 150/- from the said Vakilchand, his acceptance of Rs. 100/- bribe on 30.3.1981, was also considered breach of section 5(1)(d) of the Act. It was alleged that the appellant was, at the relevant time, employed as a Nazul Inspector at Balaghat and was, therefore, a public servant within the meaning of the term defined in the Indian Penal Code. It is alleged that complainant Vakilchand presented an application on 17.2.1981 before the Nazul Officer, seeking a no objection certificate from him for construction of a house on a Nazul plot. The appellant is alleged to have gone to the spot for spot inspection and report. On 30.3.1981 the appellant is alleged to have gone to the shop of complainant Vakilchand and went with him to see the plot in question. After inspection of plot the appellant is alleged to have told the complainant Vakilchand that there could be several objections to the grant of no objection certificate, but this can be avoided on payment of Rs. 150/-. Vakilchand is alleged to have paid this illegal gratification of Rs. 150/- and the appellant promised to get the no objection certificate issued within a week. After some time, he demanded further sum of Rs. 100/- from the complainant. The complainant felt annoyed and reported the matter to his Advocate Shri R.S. Shukla (P.W. 6). Shri Shukla reported the matter to the Collector, Balaghat, who, in turn, directed Shri Trivedi, S.D.O. (P.W. 2) to look into the matter. Shri Trivedi contacted Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri U.S. Verma (P.W. 8) and laid a trap. Eight currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and one currency note of Rs. 20/- were initialed by Shri Trivedi and given to the complainant for handing over the same to the appellant. Thereafter, the complainant Vakilchand went to Nazul Office and offered to pay him the bribe. The appellant, however, told the complainant Vakilchand that he will come to his shop after office hours and obtain the money. This was reported to Shri R.S. Shukla, who, in turn, reported it to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Verma and the S D.O. Shri Trivedi. The appellant reached the complainant's shop at about 5-20 p.m. and was taken inside and given the currency notes, in question. After receiving those currency notes, he kept them in his pocket and assured complainant Vakilchand that his work will be done. At this point of time, the raiding party apprehended the appellant and interrogated him. In the beginning, the appellant avoided answering, but, ultimately, produced the money from his pocket. Shri Trivedi compared the numbers of these notes and also his initials and seized the same. Thereafter, an offence under section 161, I.P.C. and section 5(1) of the Act was registered against the appellant. The Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement, Madhya Pradesh, Gwalior, by his communication dated 13.8.1981 (Ex. P. 8), granted permission to prosecute the appellant. That is how the appellant had been put on trial on the aforesaid allegations.

(3.) During the trial, the appellant denied having taken any bribe. His defence was that he had given his watches for repair to Vakilchand and had gone to the shop at the time of incident to receive those repaired watches. He denied having taken any money or seizure of money from him as alleged. The learned Special Judge, relying upon the evidence of Vakilchand (P.W. 1), Hiralal (P.W. 2), Amirchand (P.W. 3), R.S, Shukla (P.W. 6) and Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Verma (P.W. 8), held that Panchnama (Ex. P. 1) was prepared in the house of Shri Trivedi and currency notes were initialed. Relying further on this evidence, the learned Judge held that those currency notes were later on handed over to the appellant as illegal gratification. Relying on the aforesaid evidence, the learned Judge also held that the complainant had filed an application before the Nazul Officer for obtaining no objection certificate and in consequence thereof, the appellant had gone for spot inspection. The learned Judge did not believe the defence that there was no seizure or that the appellant was falsely implicated. Dealing with the sanction given by the Commissioner of Land Records and Settlement (Ex. p. 8), the learned Judge rejected the submission that it does not satisfy the requirement of section 6(1) of the Act. That is how the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as aforesaid.