RAM SARUP Vs. STATE OF PUNJAB

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Ram Sarup son of Mool Raj son of Sardara Ram, aged 50 years, who was working as Naib-Tehsildar (Agrarian), Bhatinda, in the year 1969, was tried for the offence under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act, by the learned Special Judge, Bhatinda, for having accepted Rs. 500/- from Shri Mukhtiar Singh Bhullar, Advocate, Bhatinda, by way of illegal gratification other than legal remuneration, as a motive or reward, for getting the surplus area case of Mit Singh of Mandi Kalan decided in his favour. Ram Sarup was acquitted of the charge under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, but has been convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/- or in default to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. Being aggrieved by the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Ram Sarup has filed Criminal Appeal No. 566 of 1971.

(2.) The prosecution story, in brief, is that a case relating to the surplus land of Mit Singh of village Mandi Kalan, was pending before the Collector, Bhatinda. Shri Mukhtiar Singh Bhullar, Advocate, Bhatinda, represented Mit Singh in that case. During the period from 27th February, 1969 to 3rd April, 1969, Shri Ram Sarup met Shri Mukhtiar Singh Bhullar three times in the Court compound and told him that he would help him Mit Singh' case and also that he was a new man in the profession and that he would help him to make him a successful lawyer. He also told Mr. Bhullar that Shri Joginder Singh, Collector, Bhatinda, was well known to him, as he had worked with him at Patiala when he was working as Sub-Divisional Officer there. He also narrated some cases in which he had obtained favourable orders from him on 3rd April, 1969. Shri Ram Sarup demanded Rs. 1,000/- from Shri Bhullar for helping him in the case of Mit Singh. Shri Bhullar did not agree but ultimately the bargain was settled at Rs. 500/-.

(3.) Shri Mukhtiar Singh Bhullar brought Rs. 500/- consisting of four currency notes, each of denomination of Rs. 100/-, and ten notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and went to the office of the Vigilance Inspector along with Pahara Singh, who met him in the Courts. Shri Bhullar met Shri Shiv Narain, who got his statement recorded by Sub-Inspector Parma Nand, as Exhibit P.G. and prepared a memo regarding the numbers of the currency notes and initialled three currency notes, two of the denomination of rupees one hundred each and one of the denomination of rupees ten. He also conducted the search of Shri Bhullar and handed him over the currency notes P.1 to P.14 and prepared memo Exhibit P.H. and sent him to pass on the money to the appellant. Pahara Singh was directed to act as a shadow witness. Shri Bhullar and Pahara Singh went to the Deputy Commissioner's wing and passed in front of the Steno's room looking for the appellant. On seeing Mukhtiar Singh Bhullar, the appellant came out of the room and asked if he had money. When Shri Bhullar wanted to hand him over the money, he told him that, that was not the proper place and took him inside the Deputy Commissioner's Court room. Pahara Singh also entered that room. The appellant asked as to who the other man was and Shri Bhullar replied that he was a Sewadar. Shri Bhullar then paid the currency notes, Exhibit P.1 to P.14 to the appellant, who put them in the hind pocket of his pants. Thereafter the appellant dictated some points to Shri Mohinder Singh Bhullar. Pahara Singh went out of the room and gave a signal to the police, upon which Shri Shiv Narain, Vigilance Inspector came and caught the appellant, outside the done, after giving his identity. Shri Surinder Mohan Dua, General Assistant to the Deputy Commissioner, was called and in the meantime Shri Charan Dass, who was then District Transport Officer, Bhatinda, also come there. The currency notes, Exhibits P.1 to P.14 were recovered from the hind pocket of the pants of the appellant in presence of those witnesses.