POORANCHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Appellant Pooranchand has preferred this appeal against the judgment dated Sept. 6, 1975 of the learned Special Judge for Anti-Corruption Department (C.A.D.) Cases, Rajasthan. Jaipur convicting and sentencing him to rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and a fine of Rs. 200.00, in default of payment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month under section 161. I.P.C. He was also convicted and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment of which further rigorous imprisonment for 2 months under section 5(2) read with 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

(2.) The prosecution case was this. Amarsingh of Neemrana had some litigation in Nayay Panchayat, Neemrana. Appellant Poornachand was its Secretary. He demanded Rs. 50.00 as illegal gratification from Amarsingh to get the case decided in his favour. Amarsingh agreed to the proposal and gave Pooranchand Rs. 40.00 in 3-4, instalments. Only Rs. 10/ remained due but Pooranchand was not getting the case decided, Amarsingh felt annoyed and approached Additional Superintendent of Police (A.C.D.), Bharatpur through Ramsingh Pradhan, Panchayat Samiti. An application Ex. P.6 dated Oct. 30, 1970 presented to him. A trap was arranged against the appellant on 14.10.70. The Additional Superintendent of Police (C. A.D) P.W.10 C.M, Paricha went to village Neemrana. He called Amarsingh and two motbirs, P.W.7 Ghasiram and P.W.8 Sagarmal. He initialled the currency-note of Rs. 10.00 bearing No. G/9 489549 given by Amarsingh. It was dusted with phenolphthalein and was returned to Amarsingh to give it to Pooranchand. At about 1. p.m. Pooranchand came from Nayay Panchayat. At the bus stand, Amarsingh gave this note to Pooranchand and made the signal. Meanwhile, Pooranchand appellant proceeded ahead and gave this note to Moolchand, owner of a pan shop. The Additional Superintendent of Police cams and demanded the note from the appellant, who denied to have received any note from Amarsingh. The Additional Superintendent of Police was informed that the appellant had given that note to Moolchand and he recovered the note from the shop. The hand of the appellant was washed and the wash was found positive for penal the in. The Additional Superintendent of Police chalked out the F. I. R., Ex. P. 11 and investigated the case. The appellant was challenged. The appellant pleaded not guilty and his defence was of total denial. The learned Special Judge believed the prosecution evidence and convicted the appellant.

(3.) I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State and perused the record of the case carefully.