GURBAX SINGH Vs. STATE OF HIMACHAL PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant was employed as a Patwari in district Kangra. Ha was charged for having accepted Rs. 100/-from Shri Hukmi Ram (P. W. 1) as gratification other than legal remuneration for demarcating his encroached land and providing him the possession of the said land and had thereby committed an offence Under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. He was also charged Under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 punishable Under Section 5 (2) of the said Act for having obtained for himself Rs. 100/- from Shri Hukmi Ram by abusing his position as a public servant.

(2.) IT is stated that Shri Hukmi Ram made a complaint to Shri Amar Nath, Sub-Inspector of the Anti-Corruption Unit at Dharamsala on July 28, 1971 that he had gone to the appellant to get his land demarcated whereupon the appellant demanded Rupees 100/- from him for demarcating the land and to give him the vacant possession. The Sub-Inspector thereupon arranged a trap after having recorded the statement of the complainant on July 28. 1971, which was verified by Shri S. R. Rattan, Dy. Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption. The Dy. S. P. Shri Sadhu Ram Rattan after having formed a raiding party initialled the currency notes of Rs. 100/-of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each and prepared a memo and after that the money was given to Shri Hukami Ram who was told to hand over the came to the accused-appellant and it was decided that as soon as he passed over the money to the accused he would give a signal to the other members of the raiding party who were to remain away from the actual scene where the money was to be handed over. Shri Ram Dass (P. W. 2) was to work as a shadow witness to the complainant to see the passing of the money to the accused, After that they proceeded to the spot i. e. at Jawar. Shri Hukami Ram accordingly passed over the money to the accused and a signal was given whereupon the other members of the raiding party rushed to that place and surrounded the accused-appellant. Shri S. R. Rattan, Dy. S. P. disclosed his identity to the accused after giving his own search to the witnesses present there. The person of the accused was searched as a result of which Rs. 100/currency notes were recovered besides Rs. 399/-which did not bear the signatures, letter Ex, P. 11, Chit Ex. P. 12 and charge-list in triplicate Ex. P. 13/1 to 3 from the pocket of the shirt of the accused. A seizure memo (Ex. P. D.) was prepared at the spot and the same was signed by the witnesses. The numbers of the currency notes were tallied with the numbers as given in the memo Ex. P. B. which had been pre pared earlier at the time when the complaint was made by Shri Hukami Ram and a memo with regard to notes was prepared. Thereafter a case was registered and it was put up in the Court after having obtained the sanction from the appropriate authority.

(3.) THE defence of the accused was that the complainant had gone to him for getting demarcation/vacation of the encroached land. He never demanded Rs. 100/- from the complainant. According to him, on July 28, 1971 he was not working as Patwari of Main circle and he had handed over the charge of that Patwar-circle on July 25, 1971 to Shri Lakha Singh Patwari of the adjoining circle He also denied that Shri Hukami Ram paid him Rs. 100/-on July 28, 1971. He admitted his presence at Mairi (Jawar) but he explained that he was on two days leave, that is, for 27th and 28th July, 1971 as he had to attend the marriage ceremony at the house of Shri Harnama who was the owner of the building in which the Patwarkhana of that circle was situate. His further explanation was that when he was coming from the Bazar side to the house where the marriage was being celebrated the complainant met him near the shop of one Prem Dass and there the complainant tried to put Rs. 100/-currency notes in his pocket but he did not permit him to do so. In that process the notes fell down on the ground and they got spread over. In the meanwhile some persons came there who ordered that he may be apprehended. He, therefore, admitted that he was arrested. It was further explained by him that he was taken from there to a nearby place where a Jeep was also brought from the road-side. It was further stated that there the Police brought a shirt from the house of one Birbal and he was made to change over the shirt which he was wearing. The Police seized his shirt containing Rs. 399/-, charge report in triplicate of Oel Patwar circle and one inland letter and a chit were also taken into possession and it was there that Shri Amar Nath, Sub Inspector, put Rs. 100/-more into these articles which he had taken from his shirt and those Rs. 100/currency notes were the same notes which were collected by Shri Amar Nath, Sub Inspector on the road-side where Shri Hukami Ram had tried to plant them on him. He further explained that Shri Nanak Chand was a tenant of Shri Hukami Ram complainant and he was cultivating 14 Kanals 11 Marias of land belonging to Shri Hukami Ram. Shri Hukami Ram wanted to record the Girdawari in his name instead of the tenant. He expressed his inability to oblige him. Further that Shri Nanak Chand's son Shri Hari Ram was also a Patwari and this fact gave an impression to the complainant that the accused was helping him as a colleague. On this the complainant became inimical to the accused and foisted a false case against him.