LAXMAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Being aggrieved by the judgment dt. 14-9-1984 passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Bikaner in criminal case No. 10/1979 convicting the appellant accused under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 to suffer one year's R. I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, this appeal is preferred on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me when the appeal came for hearing.

(2.) The prosecution story stated briefly is that one Surat Singh was Conductor with the Rajasthan State Road Transport Corporation and was serving in Sri Ganganagar Depot. On 17-4-1979, first information report was lodged before Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Sri Ganganagar that one Laxman present appellant-accused was Accountant in the Ganganagar Depot of the Corporation. Three months prior to the lodging of the F.I.R., the complainant Surat Singh as Conductor was plying bus on the Delhi - Ganganagar route and while so travelling, he issued certain tickets for journey between Delhi - Sapla but the corrected carbon copy of the tickets showing the tickets for the journey before Sarsa, the fare being less than that for Sapla. It was alleged that Surat Singh had misappropriated the sum of the deference between factual fare rent collected and then deposited, then this aspect was noticed by the accountant present appellant-accused. It is alleged that he demanded bribe of Rs. 300/- from the complainant Surat Singh who reported the matter as aforesaid to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Sri Ganganagar. The Police laid a trap and reached at the bus stand where it was agreed that the sum of Rs. 300/- could exchange hands in the morning. However, when the police party reached the bus stand, the accused was not there and he was on half day's leave, the police party therefore, came to the bus stand at 2.00 p.m. When it is alleged that the accused accepted the money and a sum of Rs. 300/- was taken out from the pocket of the accused and pant was seized. The pant where the pocket was situated was also treated to sodium carbonate and it gave positive indication proving thereby that the money was in the pocket of the accused. After due investigation, the challan was filed and the accused-appellant was prosecuted under Section 5(1)(b) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution has examined as many as 7 witnesses in support of its case and on appreciation of the evidence as led by the prosecution, the learned Special Judge came to the conclusion of guilt and accordingly convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which is assailed in this appeal.

(3.) The defence of the accused is total denial and he alleged that he has been falsely implicated in this case as he belongs to the rival union and complainant Surat Singh had previous enmity with the accused.