NEMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the order of conviction passed by the 'earned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Udaipur whereby, the learned Judge has convicted the accused under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 250.00 and under section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2.) With the assistance of the learned counsel for the accused and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State, I have scrutinised the record and re-appreciated the evidence on record.

(3.) The prosecution story as it emerges from re-appreciation of the evidence stated briefly is that; a complaint was made before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption, Udaipur on 17.8.1976 that a clerk in the office of the Regional Transport Officer is demanded bribe from the complainant which the complainant does not wish to offer and expressed his desire that legal action be taken against the corrupt officer. On the basis of this complaint, the Additional Superintendent, Anti Corruption, Udaipur arranged for a trap. The present accused was accordingly trapped and after investigation, he was duly prosecuted. The result of prosecution was conviction as mentioned above. On re-appreciation of the evidence on record, it is obvious that there is no total departure from the case that was alleged by the prosecution in the first information report and the case put forward for the evidence. It was the case of the prosecution that bribe was demanded to supply certain assessments orders in relation to passengers tax. However, what has been proved before the Court was that the accused demanded bribe for supplying photo copy of assessment order which was never the case of the prosecution. It is highly improbable that when assessment was completed and orders have been passed any official would demand bribe only for supplying photo copy. The story as put by the prosecution therefore, appears inherently improbable and taking into consideration the possible virance in the claim made by the prosecution in the first information report and the evidence led by the prosecution before the Court, the possibility of a false case be foisted upon the accused. cannot be overruled. In the circumstances, I find it unsafe to maintain the order of conviction.