MANGU SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Having been caught allegedly accepting a bribe of Rs.200.00, having been convicted for offences under Sections 7, and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 ('the Act', for short), having been sentenced to six months of rigorous imprisonment and imposed with a fine of Rs.500.00, and directed to further undergo fifteen days of simple imprisonment in default thereof for offence under Sec. 7 of the Act, and having been sentenced to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed with a fine of Rs.1000.00, and directed to further undergo one month's simple imprisonment in default thereof, for offence under Sec. 13(1)(d)(2), vide judgment dated 14.12.2001 passed by Special Judge, A.C.D. cases, jodhpur, the appellant, Mangu Singh, a patwari, has approached this Court.

(2.) Briefly, the facts of the case are that on 30.10.1998, Prakash Chandra (PW-10) submitted a written report (Ex.P-6) before Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9), the Deputy Inspector, Rajasthan Anti-Corruption Bureau, Nagaur, wherein he claimed that having lost his father, on 15.2.1996 he had obtained the death certificate of his father from the A.D.M. He submitted the death certificate to Patwari Halka Khakholi and gave a copy to the Patwari, Banwasa, Halka Deendarpura. Although the Patwari of Khakholi had made the necessary mutation, in the revenue records, in his name about one and half year back, so Tar the patwari of Banwasa, Mangu Singh, has not carried out the said mutation in the revenue records. On 28.10.1998, he met Mangu Singu for recording the mutation. However, Mangu Singh demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00 Mangu Singh told him that he has misplaced the death certificate given earlier by the complainant to him. Therefore, he requires another death certificate from the Sarpanch. According to the complainant, on 29.10.1998, he received another death certificate from the Sarpanch and submitted it before Mangu Singh. Mangu Singh told him that he should pay him a bribe of Rs.300.00 otherwise even this death certificate is likely to be lost. The complainant stated that he did not wish to give Rs.300.00 as illegal gratification to Mangu Singh, the appellant.

(3.) In order to verify the allegations made in the complaint, on 31.10.1998, Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9) sent Prem Chand (PW-6) alongwith the complainant to the Patwarghar (the office of Patwari). Convinced of the demand made by the appellant, Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9) decided to carry out the trap proceeding. For this purpose, Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9) noted the fact that according to the complainant, on 31.10.1998 he had already given Rs.100.00 to the appellant. Therefore, he gave him four notes of 50.00, totalling an amount of Rs.200.00, after covering the notes with phenolphthalein powder. On 1.11.1998, around 11:00 AM, the trap party reached the village Deendarpura. From the bus stand, Prem Chand (PW-6) and the complainant were told to proceed to the Patzoarghar. Around 11:30AM, when the trap party received the pre-determined signal, they entered the office of the Patwari. They discovered a man, in trouser and shirt, standing in the room. The complainant told Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9) that the person who is standing is Mangu Singh, the Patwari, who has taken Rs.200.00 as illegal gratification for the purpose of mutating his name in the revenue record." He further told the officer that "Mangu Singh has kept the money in front pocket of his shirt." When Om Prakash Joshi (PW-9) asked Mangu Singh about his explanation, Mangu Singh told him "that everyone gives money for the purpose of doing the mutation. The complainant has given the money out of his own volition, which I have kept in the pocket of my shirt. Even yesterday, this man had given me one hundred rupees." After receiving the said explanation, the appellant's hand were washed with water containing Sodium Carbonate. The solution turned pink. The solution was kept in four different bottles. The bottles were duly sealed. The Bureau registered a formal F.I.R., F.I.R. No. 232/1998 for offences under Sections 7, and 13(1)(d)(2) of the Act. Subsequently, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for the aforementioned offences.