JAMNABAI Vs. STATE OF M P

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant Jagdish Prasad Namdeo Had preferred this appeal against the judgment, dated 27-2-1984, in Special Case No. 2/83 by Shri N. G. Karambelkar, Second Addl. Sessions Judge, Ujjain convicting dim, firstly under section 161 Indian Penal Code and secondly under section 5 (1) (d) read with 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act (for short Act), and sentencing him to one years's R. I. on each count, and furthermore a fine of Rs. 100/- on the second count, with directions that substantive terms of imprisonments shall be concurrent and that in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo S. I. for one month. However, the above said appellant namdeo, died during the pendency and Smt. Jamnabai, the widow, vide Orders dtd. 14-1-1987, was granted leave under section 394 (2) Criminal Procedure Code to continue this appeal.

(2.) IT is common ground that the appellant Namdeo, a Sub-auditor in the department of Co-operative Societies, previously posted, as such at Bhopal, was transferred, in the same capacity, to Ujjain vide Order dtd. 4-6-1974 (Ex. P-14. A ). Since then he was sub-auditor in the office of Deputy Registrar, Co-operative Societies, ujjain. As such he was a public servant. The appellant, pursuant to the Orders (Ex. P-15 (A)dtd. 2-8-1979 had audited the accounts of chandukhedi Dugdh Sahakari Samiti for the period 1-7-1979 to 30-6-1980 on 16th and 17th January i981 and had prepared Audit report dtd. 17-1-1981 (Ex. P-5) which admittedly had been seized from him. Undisputedly at the relevant time, the complainant Premnarain Tiwari (PW. 1) was secretary in the above said Society whose accounts were audited. The appellant namdeo had a Khata with Hotchand Singh (PW. 2) as the former used to purchase kirana articles from the latter, on credit.

(3.) (i) According to the prosecution, the appellant during audit detected an embezzlement of a sum of Rs. 2000/- and therefore he told the complainant Tiwari (PW. 1)that if he is paid Rs. 100/- he (appellant) will drop/delete that objection from the audit report. Several times demand wad made, but the complainant did not oblige the appellant, saying that he (PW. 1) has not committed any embezzlement. Ultimately, on 2-2-1981 the complainant assured to pay Rs. 100/-in the evening at the residence of the appellant. The complainant was unwilling to pay the illegal gratification hence he went to Superintendent, S. P. E. Indore and gave a Written complaint (Ex. P-2) saying that he is desirous of getting Namdeo trapped red-handed. S. P. , S. P. E. Indore ordered babusingh Inspector (PW. 10) to take necessary action. The complaint (Ex. P-2) was received by Babusingh Inspector (PW. 10) at about 2 O'clock the same day i. e. on 2-2-1981. .