STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ASHRAF KHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THE succinct facts of this case, as alleged by the prosecution, are that the accused Ashraf Khan was a Police Head Constable. He was attached to Jagdish Singh, P. R. I. , in the court of the Additional Munsif-Magistrate, Jaipur City (West ). Bhagwan Das, driver of jeep car No. RJL 5953, owned by P. W. 1 Bhagat Ram, had been involved in a criminal case, relating to rash and negligent driving and causing grievous injury to some person. THE police presented a challan against him under sec. 279 and 338, I. P. C. , in the aforesaid court. It is alleged that Jagdish Singh, P. S. I. , and Ashraf Khan had demanded Rs. 100 from Bhagwan Das for getting him released in the criminal case on payment of a nominal fine After some negotiations Rs. 45 were settled as a bribe. Pursuant to that arrangement Rs. 20 were paid to the accused on January 7, 1963. THE residue was promised to be paid the next day when the judgment of the court would be pronounced. Bhagat Ram, owner of the jeep-car, showed antipathy towards offering bribe. He made an application in the Anti-Corruption Department on January 8, 1963 He also gave 5 currency notes of Rs. 5 each to the Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. THE currency notes were duly initialled and then they were handed over to the Dy. Superintendent of Police, Mr. Chandmal P. W. 8, for laying a trap. Trap was organised and in pursuance thereof the respondent was caught soon after receiving Rs. 25 in currency notes. THE respondent Ashraf Khan, as a result was challaned under sec. 52), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under sec. 161, I. PC. THE Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur, aquitted the accused of the aforesaid offence on the ground that the prosecution evidence failed to bring home the crime beyond reasonable doubt.

(2.) DISSATISFIED by the above verdict, the State Government has taken this appeal. The contention of learned counsel for the State is that the trial court went wrong in not raising presumption of having accepted bribe under sec. 4 of the Act against the accused Learned counsel further submitted that the court below erred in holding that Bhagat Ram, P. W. 1, was not a truthful witness. The trying Judge, counsel added, unnecessarily exaggerated the minor discrepancies occurring in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the respondent argued that the sanction obtained for the prosecution of the accused is not valid as the same was not accorded by the competent authority. The point relating to sanction according to defence counsel, goes to the very root of the matter, vitiating the whole trial. Such a plea can be raised even at the appellate stage.