MOHAR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS criminal appeal has been filed against the judgment and order dated June 16, 1982, passed by learned Special Judge, ACD Jaipur, in Special Criminal Case No. 24/1979, by which the accused appellant was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment under Section 161, IPC and also to a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, the appellant has to go further simple imprisonment for three months. Under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, the accused appellant has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisoment and also to pay a fine of Rs. 500/ -. In default of payment of fine, he will have to undergo three months further simple imprisonment. Both the substantive sentences to run concurrently.

(2.) IT will suffice for the purposes of this appeal to state that on November 9, 1978, complainant Vishambhar Dayal resident of village Borni, Tehsil Kishangarhbas, district Alwar, lodged a report at Police Station Alwar to Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACD, Alwar, in which it was stated that some years ago, the complainant had purchased some agricultural land in his own name and in the names of his sons and registration of the sale deed was done at Tehsil. Thereafter all the said registries were given to appellant Mohar Singh Halqa Patwari Borni for mutation, who demanded Rs 100/- for doing the same. This amount was paid to him last year. IT was further alleged that the appellant returned four registries after entering mutation but the remaining registries have not yet been entered for mutation and are lying with him. On the previous day. when the complainant met the appellant at Kishangarhbas, the appellant demanded an amount of Rs. 50/- for sweets before the work was done. IT was stated that the complainant does not want to pay illegal gratification and wants the appellant arrested red-handed.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge (A. C. D.), Jaipur, charged the accused under the sections mentioned above who claimed to be tried. THE prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses in support of the case including PW 8 Collector, Alwar, and PW9 the Investigating Officer. THE accused was examined under section 13, Cr. P. C. and also examined the witness in defence viz. Kishori Lal as D. W. 1. After the completion of the trial the accused appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.