ABDUL KHALIL Vs. STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21-1-87 passed by Special Judge, Damoh in Special Case No. 1/86 whereby the appellant was convicted for having committed the offence under S. 5(1)(d) read with S. 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act and S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was sentenced to R. I. for one year under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and R. I. for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 500/- and in default, R. I. for one year under S. 5(a)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) The charge proved against him is that he being a Patwari of Halka No. 39/31 of village Kadipur was obliged to issue on demand and on legal payment, copy of a document, i.e. Khasra, the original of which he maintained. Complainant P. W. 1 Hallu needed certified copy of Khasra for producing the same in some civil court in a land dispute case and when he approached this Patwari on 24-6-85, the Patwari told him that he could not give copy unless he paid Rs. 500/- for it. This was a demand of illegal gratification. Hallu did not accept it lying down and complained to the Collector of District Damoh. A written complaint was lodged by him as Ex. P. 1. So a raid was organised with the help of police. One Dy. Collector, Shrivastava and D. S. P. Bansal and a public witness accompanied complainant Hallu and approached the accused-appellant on 26-6-85, as this was the date fixed for payment. Earlier to that, 5 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each, duly marked by the Dy. Collector under his signatures were handed over to the complainant for being passed on to the accused-appellant as a part of the trap. So this trap-party approached the accused-appellant and the Dy. Collector and others waited on the road-side in front of the Tahsil building. The accused-appellant was on some Chabutara in front of the tahsil building. The complainant approached him and paid Rs. 500/- in those currency notes and he gave pre-determined signal to the waiting trap-party. Two witnesses were with the complainant at that time. Raiding-party of the police along with the Dy. Collector caught hold of the accused and recovered 5 currency-notes from his pocket. They were the same currency-notes which were handed over by the complainant to the accused. So it was found established that this accused in his capacity as public servant and towards performance of his duty demanded and accepted illegal gratification. Hence, he was convicted.

(3.) The finding of the trial Court is based on the evidence of Dy. S. P. Bansal P. W. 5 and Dy. Collector, M. C. Shrivastava P. W. 3 and partly on the evidence of Hallu P. W. 1 who supported the prosecution case regarding the demand of money and forming of trap-party and that he approached the accused appellant with the marked currency-notes, but did not support the acceptance of money from him by the accused and only narrated that the accused refused to accept the money and so he threw it on the Chabutara where the accused was sitting and then the raiding-party on his signal reached and collected money from Chabutara. The Dy. Collector and the police officer have narrated that the money was recovered from the pocket of the accused after the signal was given to them by Hallu P. W. 1. Independent witnesses, who acted as shadow public witnesses with Hallu, were Komal P. W. 2 and one more who is not produced. However, Komal totally declined to support the prosecution case. He also said that the money was thrown by Hallu on the Chabutara when the accused refused to accept it. The Court found that sanction had been given by the prescribed authority namely the Settlement Officer, U. D. Mishra, who appeared in the witness-box as P. W. 4 and proved the sanction given by him as Ex. P. 7. Needless to say that seizure memo of the currency-notes from the accused had been prepared and F. I. R. was recorded thereon, on the report of Dy. S. P. about the whole episode.