STATE Vs. JAGDISHRAM

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the State against a judgment of the Sessions Judge, Ganganagar, acting as Special Judge, under the Prevention of Corruption Act (No. III of 1947 acquitting the accused respondent Jagdishram of an offence under sec. 161 I.P.C. and sec. 5 (2) read with sec. 5 (1) (d) of the said Act.

(2.) The material facts leading up to this appeal may be shortly stated as follows. The accused was a Patwari of Circle Ghamadiya Tehsil Suratgarh at all the relevant times. One Sukhram wanted to know vacant Khasra numbers in the cultivable land commanded by the Rajasthan Canal, as he was desirous of having certain land allotted to him in that area and requested the accused, who was the Patwari, to supply him the required information. It is alleged that the accused put him off with a view to extract some bribe from him. Sukhram had P.W. 4 Lekhram, a cousin of his, who he thought was on terms of familiarity with the accused, and so the former went to the latter asking for his assistance to see the accused and have the necessary information supplied to him. The case for the prosecution is that then Sukhram and Lekhram both went to the accused who had his headquarters at Suratgarh and requested the latter to help Sukhram. The accused damanded a bribe of Rs. 40/ - saying that he should be given ten rupees for each square of vacant land. Sukhram wanted information about four such vacant pieces of land. Both Sukhram and Lekhram felt aggrieved at the conduct of the accused and therefore they went to Bikaner and made the report Ex. P -1 on the 4th September, 1959, to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti -Corruption Department, Bikaner. In this application, Sukhram complained that land was being allotted on a temporary basis in the area commanded by the Rajasthan Canal in Suratgarh and that he was an applicant for certain land therein and in that connection he had asked the accused Jagdish Ram to supply him information as to which Murabbas were vacant and available, but the accused who was in the habit of taking bribe for supplying such information gave evasive replies. It was further stated in this application that thereafter Sukhram took his cousin Lekhram with him and a bribe of Rs. 40/ - had been settled with Jagdishram for supplying the numbers of four vacant murabbas, and that he had told the latter that he would return within three or four days. The applicant stated that he did not want to give any bribe to the Patwari and was anxious to have him caught red -handed as he was in the habit of accepting bribes without let or hindrance, and, therefore, he prayed that necessary action be taken against him. It is also mentioned in this application that the last date for making applications for allotment of land was 8th September, 1959, according to the information supplied to him.

(3.) This application was received by P.W. Mangatram, an Inspector of the Anti Corruption Department at Bikaner, as the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Bikaner, had been transferred and his substitute had not arrived. Inspector Mangatram then made an application to the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, on the 7th September, 1959, in which he mentioned how Sukhram had come to him to seek assistance in connection with entrapping the accused, the latter having asked for an illegal gratification of Rs, 40/ - for rendering him some assistance in connection with the temporary allotment of land in the Rajasthan Canal area, and further stated that the Deputy Superintendent of the Anti Corruption Department had gone on transfer and his substitute had not arrived, and in these circumstances he sought permission to lay a trap and to arrest the suspect and to investigate into the case in accordance with the provisions of sec. 5A(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The District Magistrate by his order of the same date, gave the required permission. Thereupon P.W. Mangatram reached Suratgarh Railway Station on the 8th September, 1959. It seems that he had already asked Sukhram and Lekhram to meet him at the said Railway Station on the morning of the 8th September. Information had also been gathered by Sukhram) and Lekhram that the accused who had gone out was to return to Suratgarh by the morning train reaching Suratgarh at 11 A.M. In the meantime, four currency notes often rupees each bearing Nos. M1 624574, Z36 537638, D 47 327099 and Z77 172633, were produced by Sukhram before the Inspector who initialled them and gave them back to Sukhram with instructions to give them over to the accused as soon as he got down from the railway train reaching Suratgarh at 11 A.M. Consequently, when the accused alighted from the train, Sukhram gave the aforesaid four currency notes (Articles 1 to 4) to the accused and asked him to supply him the necessary information with respect to four vacant squares of land in the Rajasthan canal area. The accused accepted the notes, put them into the upper pocket of his shirt and asked Sukhram to come to his house to take the necessary numbers. It had already been arranged that when Sukhram had passed on the money to the accused, he would make a sign to Inspector Mangatram, and accordingly the former beaconed to the latter and Mangatram stopped the accused while he was at a distance of about four or five poundas from the exit gate at the Suratgarh Railway Station. The Inspector asked the accused to produce the currency notes which had been given to him by Sukhram. The accused denied that. Thereupon the Inspector told him that he would take his search, and at this the accused produced from his pocket two bundles of notes, one consisting of the four currency notes of Rs. 10/ - each specified above, and the other bundle consisting of one ten -rupee note and four notes of one rupee each. The recovery memo Ex. P -3 was prepared immediately on the spot and the accused was arrested. This memo is signed by Rawatram son of Sukha Jat and another Rawatram son of Jodharam Jat, and Bahadur and Sahiram, and the Inspector Mangatram. It is significant that the accused also put his signature on that. The Inspector then filed the first information report Ex. P -5 on the next day, that is, the 9th September, 1959, at 8 -30 A.M. at the police station Bikaner. The necessary sanction under sec. 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was applied for and obtained from the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, and the accused was then challaned in the court of the Special Judge for being tried under sec. 161 I.P.C. and sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with sec. 5 (1) (d) thereof.