DEBENDRA SINGHA Vs. THE STATE OF ASSAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal is from the judgment of the special Judge Cashure at Slichar convicting the Appellant under Section 5(2) the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 read with Section 165 I.P.C. and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 200/ - in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment for another month.

(2.) G .R. Case No 29815 of 1975 under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, shortly The Act' was registered in then Police: Station on a First Information Report lodged by S.A. Choudhury, Executive Magistrate and Land Acquisition Officer, Silchar (P.W. 3) on receipt of a written complaint of one Md. Hussain Ali Borbhulya (P.W. 1) made before the Addi tional Deputy Commissioner, Silchar. The ease was investigated first by P.W. 9. Rajkumar Joydiv Singh and after him, by P.W. 10. Monmath Ram Gayan. The learned Special Judge, Cachar framed charge under Section 5(2) road with Section 5(l)(d) of the Act read with Section 165 I.P.C. for the Appellant's having accepted a sum of Rs. 15/ - from P.W. 1 by corrupt or illegal means or by abusing his position as a public servant as a gratification for acting upon a petition. At the trial ten P.Ws. but no D.Ws. were examined. In his statement under Sections 313 Code of Criminal Procedure the Appellant denied the charge and stuped that when the Land Acquisition Officer (P.W. 5) asked him about the allegations be denied it; that no money was recovered from him; and that case was a fabricated one. The prosecution case is based on the evidence of a trap witness (P.W. 1), search and seizures by P. Ws 5, 9 and 10, and the oral evidence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. P.W. 1's version is that one Marquis Christian, who was allotted a plot of land, but did not cultivate it himself, on request to transfer the land to the witness, asked him to submit, a petition at the Land Acquisition Office and when the witness submitted his application the Appellant, a clerk in the Land Acquisition Office, demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/ -. P.W. 1 being unable to pay informed P.W. 2, Ansarul Haque Laskar, a member of the Youth Congress and with him went to the L.A.O., P.W. 5 and complained before him, but the latter assured, that be would talk to the Appellant.

(3.) P .W.5, the L.A.O. corroborates P.W. 1 as regards complaint by P.W. 2 and about delaying action on P.W. 1's application by the Appellant. According to him it was only the previous day and the next duty that he called the Appellant, enquired about the application and directed the Appellant to put up the same before him at about 2 P.M. Ha also corroborates P.W. 1 when he says that at about 1 P.M. the A.D. C. called him and arriving in At A.D.C.'s chamber he found P.W. 1 complaining to the A.D.C. about the delaying of his application and demanding some money when P.W. 3 was called by the. A.D.C. who asked P.W. 1 to submit a written application and the same was written by P.W. 5 and signed and submitted by P.W. 1 and then the A.D.C. endorsed the petition to the S.D.O. and to him for laying a trap, Ext. 1(2) being that endorsement with signature of A.D.C. and that P.W. 3 put his signature on the currency notes and handed over those to P.W. 1. He gives the numbers of the currency notes which were initiated by P.W. 3 including one uninitiated one -rupee note which belonged to the Appellant. He also states that P.W. 9 also come to the A.D.C. office. Then P.W. 1 and P.W. 5 in the former's jeep went to S.P's office and therefrom to his office.