LAWS(RAJ)-1980-10-29

DR. K.S. WALIA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

Decided On October 06, 1980
Dr. K.S. Walia Appellant
V/S
STATE OF RAJASTHAN Respondents

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the Judgment dated May 8, 1975 of the Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur City, convicting the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code, and section 5 (1) (d), read with section 5 (2) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentencing him, respectively, to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs 200.00 or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for three months, and rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 500.00 or, in default, further rigorous imprisonment for four months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant, Dr. K.S. Walia, was functioning as a public servant, to wit a Rajasthan State Government Medical Officer, in charge of the Primary Health, Centre, Malpura District, Tonk (for short the P. H. C. Malpura) at the material time. The complainant Tarif Singh (P. W. 2) was a Central Government employee, posted at that time as a mechanic in the Sheep and Wool Research Centre, Abika Nagar. The appellant was one of the authorised medical attendants in respect of Tarif Singh On July 15, 1970, Tarif Singh consulted the appellant for numbness in his fingers. The case of the prosecution is that Tarif Singh consulted the appellant. At the P. H, C. Malpura during hospital hours (5.30 p.m.) and as such the appellant was not entitled to charge any consolation fees from the patient. On the other hand, the plea in defence 1 is that Tarif Singh consulted the appellant at the latter's residence on the first floor of the P. H. C, Malpura on July 15th 1970. At about 4.30 p.m. and as such the appellant was entitled to charge Rs. 5.00 as consolation fee from Tarif Singh.

(3.) According to the prosecution, the appellant issued the prescription slip, Ex. P. 2, to Tarif Singh at the P. H. C. Malpura on July 15th, 1970. At about 5.30 p.m. immediately on examining, him for the first time in the P. H. C. itself. The plea in defence is that the appellant examined this patient for the first time earlier that evening at his residence at about 4 30 p.m. and simultaneously issued the prescription slip, Ex. P. 3, to the consolation.