NAWAL KISHORE YADAV Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE appellant, who is an Amin, has been found guilty for the offences under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 13 (2) and 13 (i) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year on both counts and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000.00 under Section 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Vigilance, South Bihar, Patna in Special Case No. 48 of 1989.

(2.) THE case was instituted on the basis of a complaint lodged by Damodar Singh on 19.06.1989 (Exhibit-6). In this complaint petition, it has been specifically stated that the survey operation was being conducted in his village Allahbaxpur. Uma Devi, wife of Brij Ballav Sharma, who is the brother-in-law (sadu) of the complainant had purchased 2 bighas of land in the said village. He supposedly requested the complainant to approach the Amin to get the names recorded in the revenue records. It is alleged that the Amin demanded a sum of Rs. 250.00 as bribe in order to enter the name of Uma Devi in the records of right. On receiving the complaint, the Vigilance Department appointed Raghubir Prasad Singh as the Verifier, who accompanied the complainant Damodar Singh on 22.06.1989 to verify the truth of the allegations made. Exhibit-1 is the verification report which indicates that they went to the house in which the Amin was living at the relevant time and found him working. The complainant introduced the Verifier as the brother of his brother- in-law and requested the Amin to do his work. The appellant is said to have demanded Rs. 500.00 in order to enter the name of the purchaser in the revenue records. The complainant is said to have bargained with him. Eventually, the complainant spoke to him in private and a sum of Rs. 250.00 was settled between the parties. Apparently, there was one other person present during the talks. At the outset, it may be noted that the complaint petition which was filed earlier in time indicates that there was only a demand of Rs. 250.00. However, the verification report is contrary to the initial allegations levelled against the appellant as it is alleged that there was a demand of Rs. 500.00 which was reduced to Rs. 250.00. It may be highlighted at this juncture that the Verifier did not hear actual demand of Rs. 250.00. Strangely, these demands and talks were not only made in front of the Verifier and the complainant, but it is specifically stated that another person was present at the place of occurrence when the demand was made. In this background, the evidence of the witnesses is to be examined.

(3.) APART from some minor contradictions such as some of the witnesses have stated that the appellant was wearing a DHOTI, and the others have stated that he was wearing a LUNGI or that the statement of PW 4 that the trap team was in uniform, there appears to be no real contradictions with regard to the manner in which the trap was conducted. In fact, the independent witness to the seizure have also supported the seizure of the tainted money.