YASIN MOHAMMAD Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The appellant, a Police Constable, has been found guilty of an offence punishable under section 161, I.P.C. and sentenced to one yearTs R.I. and a fine of Rs. 50/- and in default of payment of fine, a further R.I. for 6 months, by judgment dated 25-3-1982, passed by Shri P.C. Agarwal, Special Judge, Chatarpur, in Special Criminal Case No. 1 of 1980, and has preferred this appeal under section 374(2) Cr. P.C. challenging his aforesaid conviction and sentence.

(2.) Appellant was put on trial for having accepted a sum of Rs 30/- as illegal gratification from Arvind Kumar Jam (P.W. 1) on 9-5-1980 at Naogaon while working as a public servant, punishable under section 161, I.P.C. and section 5 (1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The learned Special Judge has found the appellant not guilty of offence under section 5 (1)(a) of the said Act, but has held him guilty under section 161, I.P.C. Allegations against the appellant were that in May 1980, the appellant was employed as a Police-Constable and posted at Naogaon. Arvind Kumar Jam (P.W. 1), who was a Member of Educated Unemployed Association, had been given a licence by the Collector, Chhatarpur, for selling kerosene oil in retail at his shop at Naogaon, and was selling kerosene oil on the basis of the said licence. The appellant approached the said Arvind Kumar Jam on 21-4-1980 and enquired as to how the kerosene oil was being sold. Arvind Kumar Jam informed the appellant that kerosene oil was being sold as per orders of the Collector. Appellant asked the said Arvind Kumar Jam to meet him in the evening. However, the appellant himself reached the shop of Arvind Kumar Jam in the evening and told him that in case he wanted to sell kerosene oil, he should pay him a sum of Rs. 10/- per day. Arvind Kumar Jam did not agree to make the payment and, therefore, the appellant left the place. Next day, the appellant again met Arvind Kumar Jam and told him that in case be did not pay the money, he would not be able to carryon business. This threat was repeated on the following day as well. On this, Arvind Kumar Jam reported the matter to Rajnarayan (P.W. 7), President of the Association, who promised to deal with the appellant. Rajnarayan then met the appellant and persuaded him to accept Rs. 5/-. per day instead of Rs. 10/-. Arvind Kumar Jam (P.W. 1), Rajnarayan (P.W. 7) and Anoop Kumar (P.W. 3), thereafter, went to the Collector, Chhatarpur, and lodged report (Ex. P. 1). The Collector ordered Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Shri R.P. Mishra (P.W. 2) to take necessary action. Shri Mishra signed a twenty rupee note and a ten rupee note (Arts A-i and A-2) and handed over the same to Arvind Kumar Jam with a direction that these notes be given to the appellant as bribe. A trap was also arranged. Panchnama (Ex. P-3) was recorded at Chhatarpur and it was decided to hand over the money to the appellant at Ansar Pan Bhandar, Naogaon. A.K. Jam (P.W. 8), Deputy Superintendent of Police, was appointed by the Superintendent of Police, Chhatarpur, to participate in the trap. Arvind Kumar Jam, thereafter, gave Rs. 30/- in two currency notes to the appellant, who kept the same in his pocket. On receiving signal from Rajnarayan, R.P. Mishra (P.W. 2) and A.K. Jam (P.W. 8) reached the spot and seized two currency notes on being presented by the appellant. A Panchnama (Ex. PA) was also prepared and appellant arrested. Thereafter, the appellant was put on trial as aforesaid.

(3.) The appellant denied having accepted any illegal gratification. He even denied the knowledge that Arvind Kumar Jam had obtained a licence for selling kerosene oil. Appellants specific defence was that he had purchased an imported pant piece from Arvind Kumar JainTs shop through one Rajandra Kumar Sahu (D.W. 2) for a sum of Rs 85/-, but as this pant piece was not of full length so he had returned the same. Arvind Kumar Jam had paid him Rs. 50/- at the time of return and had promised to pay Rs. 35/- later on. On 9-5-1980, Arvind Kumar Jam had returned this balance of Rs. 35/- to him, out of which Rs. 30/- were seized. Appellant had examined three defence witnesses to prove his defence. It was also his case that prosecution witnesses are of bad character and known criminals and have firmed a group of their own to harass him.