DEEPCHAND JOT RAM Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who was a police constable, has been convicted under Section 161, Indian Penal Code, and Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) of the prevention of Corruption Act. 1947 and has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under each count, the sentences being concurrent, by the learned special Judge who came to the conclusion that the appellant had obtained Rs. 4 from Ram Parkash Tandon complainant as a reward for releasing him on bail

(2.) ACCORDING to Ram Parkash Tandon (P W 13 ). there was a criminal case which had been instituted by Hira Singh against him and three others in the Court of the additional District Magistrate. Delhi under Section 323. Indian Penal Code. On 10th October 1963 the appellant along with Hira Singh came to him outside the court of the Senior Sub Judge where he was standing waiting for the hearing of his case in that Court. The appellant told him that a warrant had been issued against him. The complainant requested him to take bail but he replied that he would take him to the police post. Accordingly the complainant was taken there. The testimony of the complainant further was -

(3.) MR. Tara Chand Mathur has contended that there is absolutely no evidence lo support the statement of the complainant as lo the talk which took place between him and the appellant in the hotel on 14th October 1963 when the four currency notes of Rupee 1 each are stated to have been handed over to the the appellant. Therefore it has to be seen in what circumstances the money was taken, if at all, by the appellant. He says that on the complainant's own statement the appellant had first granted the bail and later on demanded some money for chai pani which meant more or less an ordinary tip The complainant gave him Rs. 3 but he wanted some more money and that is how on the complainant's own version Rs 4 came to be paid on 14th October 1963 His contention, therefore, is that if the evidence of the complainant with regard to I lie talk which took place on the 14th October 1963 between him and the complainant in the hotel is not proved to have taken place in the manner deposed to by the complainant, the whole incident comes lo this the appellant had granted bail without asking for any reward nor had he been induced by the offer of any bribe in the matter of doing so. After the bail had been granted, it was wholly innocuous that a tip was either demanded or accepted. He has relied a good deal on a Bench decision of this Court in Nitya Nand Prem Lal v. The State. AIR 1954 Punj 89 a case under the Prevention of Corruption Act, where a railway official had prepared a railway receipt for certain goods which were consigned and had later on been given some money as tip or inam. It was observed that even if it be found from the facts that the small amount which had been left with the accused had been found in his possession, the question nevertheless was whether he had, by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing his position as a public servant, obtained for himself that small sum of money, in case the money had been left by a person who according to his own showing, was in the habit of tipping railway servants in order to have his work facilitated in my view the present case is more or less of the same type as was decided by the Bench It is true that there is nothing to show that it was customary to give a tip after bail has been taken in a bailable, warrant but all the same on the evidence of the complainant himself the appellant never demanded any amount by way of reward or bribe or gratification before he finished the entire work of granting the bail. It was only afterwards that he had asked for some tip which was clear from the language used by him "for chai pani". It was open to the complainant to decline to give him any tip and even if lie had refused to do so, it would not have been within the power of the appellant to have cancelled the bail or do anything else in the matter of the official work which had already been finished and completed so far as the appellant was concerned.