PRAMOD SINGH CHAUHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This criminal appeal is directed against the judgement dtd. 28/5/1987 passed by the learned Special Judge, ACD Cases, Jaipur in Special Criminal Case No.14/1983 whereby, the accused- appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

(2.) The facts in brief are that the complainant Shri Ghaus Mohammad lodged a written report dtd. 19/2/1983 with the Superintendent of Police, ACD, Jaipur alleging therein that the appellant, an employee in the State Rehabilitation Department, has demanded a sum of Rs.500.00 as illegal gratification for getting a case decided in his favour. It was stated therein that after much persuasion, the appellant agreed to receive a sum of Rs.100.00 on 19/2/1983. As per the prosecution case, the appellant was caught red handed on 19/2/1983 accepting the illegal gratification. Charges under Sec. 161 IPC and Sec. 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 were framed against the appellant. The learned trial court has, vide its judgement dtd. 28/5/1987, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated hereinabove.

(3.) Assailing the judgement, learned counsel for the appellant contended that in this case, neither the demand could be established, nor it could be established by the prosecution that any work of the complainant was pending with the appellant at the relevant time. Drawing attention of this Court towards the statements of various prosecution witnesses, the evidence in defence and the documentary evidence available on record, learned counsel contended that there is no evidence of demand of illegal gratification by the appellant except the bald allegation levelled by the complainant which is full of contradictions on the aspect as to when the demand was made by the appellant for the first time. Referring to the order sheet dtd. 15/2/1983 (Ex.P7), learned counsel submitted that the objection filed by the complainant along with his father was already rejected by the competent authority much before the date of alleged demand and hence, the whole basis of the allegation that he demanded illegal gratification to decide the case in complainant's favour, did not survive. Learned counsel submitted that, as a matter of fact, the complainant has refunded a loan advanced by the appellant to him, which was his defence from the very inception he was caught with money. He, therefore, prayed that the appeal be allowed and the judgement of conviction and sentence dtd. 28/5/1987 be quashed and set aside. He, in support of his submissions, has relied on the following judgements: