STATE Vs. NAGINDAR SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of Nagindar Singh respondent of the charge under Section 161, Penal Code. On 26 -6 -1950 Nagindar Singh, who is a Sub -Inspector in the Department of the Custodian Muslim Evacuee Property, along with another colleague whose name has not come to light, went to the house of Ram Chand complainant, a shepherd of Bhatinda and accused him of being dishonestly in possession of certain goats alleged to have been left by some Muslim evacuee. Ram Chand tried to repel that accusation by producing the receipt evidencing the purchase by him of 48 goats for Rs. 800/ - from one Ishar Singh. Nagindar Singh, however, threatened him with prosecution for theft unless he paid him Rs. 100. The bargain was struck at Rs. 60/ - which Ram Chand agreed to pay as illegal gratification to save himself from harassment. Nagindar Singh insisted that Rs. 60/ - should be paid by the evening positively as the amount was to be paid to the Custodian at Bhatinda. Ram Chand approached his neighbor Dr. Ram Lal, who is a medical practitioner and Municipal Commissioner for a loan explaining the immediate and pressing reason for his incurring the liability. Dr. Ram Lal acceded to his request and gave him six G.C. notes of Rs. 10/ - each, drew up a complaint which was thumb marked by Ram Chand and took him with it to S. Amar Singh, Assistant Commissioner, Bhatinda. The story of the demand of the bribe by Nagindar Singh was narrated to S. Amar Singh who initialled the G.C. notes and sent them along with the complainant, to the Kotwal Bhatinda, with the direction that necessary action be taken and the result reported to him.

(2.) NEXT comes the evidence of recovery. As mentioned above, the recovery memo was attested by Dr. Ram Lal and Dr. Gurbachan Singh. The memo is in Gurmukhi script and Dr. Gurbachan Singh has admitted that he can read that script. He has, however, stated that he had attested the memo at the request of the police and that in fact no recovery had been effected in his presence. The contents of the memo show that the recovery was conducted before Doctors Ram Lal and Gurbachan Singh. Kotwal Jaswant Singh and Dr. Ram Lal have stated that Dr. Gurbachan Singh was present at the time of the recovery. Neither Dr. Ram Lal nor M. Jaswant Singh has any axe to, grind against the accused nor is there any, reason why they should falsely state that the G.C. notes were produced by the accused in the presence of Dr. Gurbachan Singh. Dr. Ram Lal is an entirely disinterested witness? Three witnesses, namely Ram Chand, M. Jaswant Singh and Dr. Ram Lal have proved that the G.C. notes were recovered from the pos session of the accused. Dr. Ram Lal has stated that the accused on getting into the Chaubara asked his wife to make over to him the G.C. notes that he had just then given to her and that she took out two G.C. notes from a pitcher and four from a niche and gave them over to the police. M. Jaswant Singh's evidence shows that the accused had himself given the G.C. notes from the two places mentioned by Dr. Ram Lal. The discrepancy is of an immaterial nature. Even if the G.C. notes were produced by the wife of Nagindar Singh the inescapable inference would be that they had been given to her by the accused very shortly before the recovery.

(3.) I agree.