MADHUSUDAN PRASAD AGARWAL Vs. STATE OF BIHAR

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal by Madhusudan Prasad Agarwal is directed against the judgment and the order of the Special Judge, Darbhanga, convicting the appellant under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and imposing a sentence of fine of Rs. 500/- on him under the said section and in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for two months. The learned Judge further convicted the appellant under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, but he did not impose upon him a separate sentence under that section.

(2.) THE prosecution case, in brief, was that Raghunath Prasad Mishra (P. W. 3), resident of village Madanpur, who was an agriculturist had applied for correction of Ms Khasra (plot number) before the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal in the district of Darbhanga on the 31st of July, 1964. THE Block Development Officer sent for the record from the Compensation Officer. Appellant was incharge clerk of the record. P. W. 3 met the appellant and requested him to send the record to the Block Development Officer. Appellant, however, told P. W. 3 that since the Compensation Officer had taken charge of the Baheri Block Development Office, he was unable to send the record as desired. THEreupon, P. W. 3 filed a petition before the Revenue Subdivi-sional Officer for a direction to send the relevant record to the Block Development Officer, Bahadurpur Anchal. THE Subdivisional Officer directed the compliance. Subsequently on the 21st of September, 1964, P. W. 3 asked the appellant to send the record, whereupon the appellant demanded Rs. 7/- from him as illegal gratification for doing the work. P. W. 3 then told him that he would bo able to pay him Rs. 5/- for the said purpose on the 22nd of September, 1964. On that date P. W. 3 went to the chamber of the Collector, Darbhanga with a petition Ext. 4 and reported that the appellant was demand-Ing Rs. 2/- for copying the paper and Rs. 5/-for sending the record to the Block Development Officer. THE Collector directed P. W. 3 to see the Sub-divisional Officer, who asked P. W. 3 to meet him next day at 10 a. m. When P. W. 3 on the next day met the Sub-divisional Officer, the latter directed Mr. A. P. Sharma (P. W. 6), who was the Magistrate, First Class and Bishwanath Singh (P. W. 1) the Sub-Inspector incharge of Laheriasarai Police Station to accompany P. W. 3. On reaching near the office of the appellant P. W. 6 took a currency note of Rs. 5/-Ext. I) from P. W. 3 and put his initial thereon. Along with them there was one constable Harinandan Singh. P. Ws. 1 and 6 remained near the Co-operative Bank whereas, P. W. 3 went to the Compensation Office along with Harinandan Singh as directed by P. W. 6. P. W. 3 handed over the said five rupee currency note (Ext. I) to the appellant who kept the same in his pocket. At that time Harinandan Singh, who had accompanied P. W. 3 remained at the door whereas P. Ws. 1 and 6 had reached near the house of one Triguna Mishra which was adjacent south to the Compensation Office where the appellant was working. On receiving signals from P. W. 3 as well as constable Harinandan Singh P. W. 6 along with P. W. 1 entered the Compensation Office. THEre P. W. 6 disclosed his identity to the appellant and told him his purpose for going there. He further told the appellant that he had taken Rs. 5/- as a bribe and he wanted to search his person. THE appellant was wearing a bush shirt. From the pocket on the left side of his chest the said five rupee currency note (Ext. I) which was initialled by P. W. 6 was recovered. Appellant was arrested there and P. W. 6 forwarded a report (Ext. 2) to the Sub-divisional Officer. On the basis of the said report a first information report (Ext. 3) was drawn up by Shri Darbeshwar Prasad Singh (P. W. 7), Deputy Superintendent of Police, who took up investigation. After obtaining sanction (Ext. 5) from the District Magistrate and completing investigation, he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant.

(3.) THE defence of the appellant, in brief, was that P. W. 3 had come to the office where the appellant was working and had taken five one rupee notes in exchange of his one five rupee note, and the appellant was innocent and had not committed any offence. In order to establish his defence, he examined two witnesses, namely, Sayeedul Rahman (D. W. 1) and Bimlendra Mahto (P. W. 2), both of whom were working in the same Compensation Office at the relevant time.