JAGDISH PRASAD VERMA Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The sole appellant in this appeal has been convicted by the Special Judge of Bhagalpur Under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, hereinafter called Act 2 of 1947, and has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years.

(2.) The appellant was the Karmchari of Halka No. 2 in Pipra Anchal and was in charge of village Dinapatti also. There is a Gram Panchayat in that village named as Dinapatti Gram Panchayat in the sub-division of Supaul, district Saharsa. In June and July 1959, working as a Karmchari in village Dinapatti, he is said to have taken by way of illegal gratification various sums of money from various persons of village Dinapatti, Tola Litiahi, for showing them favour in his duty connected with the mutation of their names or the work of table survey. In or about that time one Ramadhin Khatbe (P.W. 19) had filed an application for mutation of his name in respect of certain land on the 25th July, 1959, in the office of the Circle Officer, who at the relevant time was Sri Bishwanath Sukla (P.W. 30), at Pipra Anchal. The application was sent for enquiry to the appellant. He is said to have demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- from P. W. 19, who refused to pay any sum to the appellant. It seems that the appellant had submitted a report against P.W. 19 in connection with his application for mutation filed in the circle office. On the 30th of November, 1959, the Circle Officer (P.W. 30) was camping at Village Bisaha and there on that date an application (Exhibit 8) scribed by Dukhi Panjiar (P. W. 18) was filed making a complaint against the appellant and this application was signed by Ramadhin Khatbe (P. W 19), Sukhdeo Khatbe (P. W. 20), Garbhu Khatbe (P. W. 21), and Bihari Khatbe (P. W. 23) all of Tola Litiahi. In this application the complaint made against the appellant was that he had demanded a sum of Rs. 30/- from P.W. 19 but he had refused to pay and that the appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 14/- from P.W. 20; a sum of Rs. 36/- against his demand of Rs. 40/- from P.W. 21; a sum of Rs. 30/- from P. W. 23 and a sum of Rs. 30/- from one Bambholi since deceased. The Circle Officer on the filing of this application took down the statements of P.Ws. 19, 20 and 21 which are respectively Exhibits 7/2, 7 and 7/1. He asked Sri Bishwanath Singh (P.W. 14), the then Circle Inspector of Pipra Anchal, who was also present at Village Basaha on the 30th November, 1959, to enquire into the matter. Shortly thereafter on that very date three more petitions were filed before the Circle Officer and they are Exhibits 8/5, 8/4 and 8/8. The petitioners in Exhibit 8/5 are Saukhi Mandal (P W. 4), Mosst. Dukhani (P.W. 16 tendered) and Bihari Khatbe (P.W. 29). Their complaint was that the appellant had taken from them respectively Rs. 35/-, Rs. 12/- and Rs. 2/- in connection with the mutation of their respective names over certain lands. There was also a mention of the fact that the appellant had accepted a sum of Rs. 3/- from Babujan, since deceased, whose son Bihari Mandal (P.W. 15) is a tendered witness in the case. The two other applications, Exhibits 8/4 and 8/6 were in connection with the table survey matter. In the former the sole petitioner was Govind Paswan (P.W. 24), who complained that the appellant had taken a sum of Rs. 10/- from him against his demand of Rs. 30/- for doing the table survey work in respect of his land. The petitioners in Exhibit 8/6 making a similar grievance were Sukhal Paswan (P.W. 25), Domi Paswan (P.W. 26), Chauthi Paswan (P.W. 27) and Raghuni Paswan (P.W. 28). They stated that they had respectively paid Rs. 6/-, Rs. 10/-, Rs. 5/- and Rs. 7/- to the appellant in connection with their work of table survey. The Circle Officer asked the Circle Inspector to make enquiries in connection with the said three applications also. When the Circle Inspector had proceeded with the matter of enquiry, another application (Exhibit 1) was filed before him on the 2nd December, 1959, by Tanak Lal Jadav (P.W. 1), Munar Jadav (P.W. 2), Kishan Jadav (P.W. 3) and Chhattar Khatbe (P.W. 22). Their complaint was that the appellant for the mutation of their names in respect of their respective lands had accepted from them Rs. 9/-, Rs. 10/- and Rs. 40/- respectively. The Circle Inspector made enquiries in regard to the four petitions filed before the Circle Officer and one filed before him. On the 5th or 6th December, 1959, it appears that the Circle Officer was camping at Village Thumba, head-quarters of another Gram Panchayat within Pipra Anchal. The Circle Inspector also happened to be there. By that time, it appears, enquiries had been made by the Circle Inspector from the persons concerned and a verbal report made to the Circle Officer. It further appears that the appellant was also present there at village Thumba and he undertook in presence of the Circle Officer to refund all the amounts taken by him, the total of which was Rs. 262/-, to the persons concerned, who had made their complaints before the Circle Officer and the Circle Inspector. Upon this the Circle Officer directed the Circle Inspector to get the amounts refunded, which, as is the prosecution case, were actually refunded on the 7th December, 1959, at village Dinapatti at the darwaza of Sri Girjanand Mandal (P.W. 6), Mukhiya of Dinapatti Gram Panchayat. A list (Exhibit 3) bearing the signature or the thumb impression of the persons concerned was prepared on that date by Narain Mandal, Gram Sevak of Thumba Gram Panchayat, (P.W. 17). Thereafter the Circle Inspector made a report (Exhibit 5) on the 10th December, 1959, to the Circle Officer, who received it on the 12th December, 1959, and which bears his endorsement (Exhibit 5/1).

(3.) The evidence of the Circle Officer (P.W. SO) is that the appellant was asked to submit an explanation in connection with the report (Exhibit 5) submitted by the Circle Inspector. But on his failure to do so, after consultation with the Additional Collector, he directed the Circle Inspector to file the complaint against the appellant. The complaint petition (Exhibit 6) was filed in the Court of the Sub-divisional Magistrate, Supaul, on the 25th of January, 1980, along with a copy of the sanction of the Collector as was stated in Exhibit 6. It was found that the case was exclusively triable by the Special Judge at Bhagalpur and, therefore, the complaint was forwarded to and received by him on the 3rd February, 1960. He, however, did not take cognizance of the case immediately on receipt of the complaint as it appears that probably the sanction of the Collector which was stated to have been filed along with the complaint petition was not received by him. He directed the filing of the sanction order. The Collector accorded his sanction on the 8th August, 1960, which order is Exhibit 10 in the case. This was filed in the court of the Special Judge on the 9th August 1960, whereupon he took cognizance of the case under Section 8 of Criminal Law (Amendment) Act, 1952, hereinafter called Act XLVI of 1952. The defence of the appellant has been that he has committed no offence and a false case has been filed against him at the instance of the Circle Inspector (P. W. 14) in collusion with the Mukhiya (P. W. 6) and on the machination of Ramadhin Khatbe (P. W. 19). The learned Special Judge, however, has believed the prosecution case to be true and has convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.