LAWS(P&H)-1984-3-11

SURJA RAM Vs. STATE OF HARYANA

Decided On March 13, 1984
SURJA RAM Appellant
V/S
STATE OF HARYANA Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Surja Ram appellant has by way of this appeal challenged his conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act recorded by the Special Judge, Sirsa, vide his order dated 1st June, 1983. The learned Special Judge vide his order dated 6th June, 1983, sentenced the appellant to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 25/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for ten days under the aforesaid section.

(2.) The appellant was a Conductor at the Hansi depot of Haryana Roadways in the year 1982. On 28th February, 1982, he was on duty on a bus going from Abubshahar to Dabwali. There was a great rush in the bus. About 14 passengers traveling from Abubshabar to Dabwali were sitting on the roof of the bus. The appellant is alleged to have charged Rs. 1.50 each from all the passengers sitting on the roof of the bus but did not issue them any ticket. The bus was checked by a raid party consisting of Ram Saran Dass Khurana, Deputy Superintendent of Police P.W. 14, Ramji Dass Inspector Vigilance P.W. 13 and Ram Parkash Inspector of Haryana Roadways P.W. 5. Since the petitioner after charging the fare from the passengers had not issued tickets to them so a case under Section 409 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was registered at Police Station, SVB (H), Hissar, on 26th April, 1982, at 8.05.p.m. on the basis of report Exhibit PM/I. The formal first information report is Exhibit PM/2. After due sanction for the prosecution was obtained, the appellant was sent up for trial.

(3.) When examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied the allegation that the charged the fare from the passengers but did not issue tickets to them. He further, stated that Ram Parkash Inspector was inimical to him and that at his instance a false case had been registered against him. However, he did not produce any evidence in defence.