MAHENDRA NATH NAGIYA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment, dated, Feb. 17, 1982, of the Special Judge, Rajasthan, Jaipur, whereby the learned Judge convicted the appellant under section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and section 5(1) (d), read with section 5 (2), of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, and sentenced him to simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 250.00 or in default, further simple imprisonment for four weeks under each count. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The appellant, Mahendra Nath Nagiya, was employed as an overseer with the Municipal Council Jaipur at the material time. One of his duties as such overseer was to prevent unauthorised erection of buildings in the Raja Park locality of the town. On Nov. 15, 1972, at about 11 A.M. the appellant contacted Chunilal (PW. 5) and told him that he had seen the construction in progress of a shop, at the roadside boundary wall of Chunilal's house in Raja Park and demanded illegal gratification if Chunilal wanted the unauthorised construction to be hushed up. Chunilal asked him to come later. The appellant again went to him about 3 P. M. when he gave him a ten-rupee note. The appellant returned the note to Chunilal telling him that he would not accept any amount less than Rs. 75.00. After some entreaties and requests, the appellant agreed to accept Rs. 50.00 which Chunilal promised to pay on the following day.

(3.) On Nov. 25, 1972, afternoon, the appellant, along with a chaprasi again visited Chunilal's shop, apparently to realise the amount of illegal gratification which Chunilal had promised to pay. The chaprasi told Chunilal that the appellant wanted the payment of the amount. Chunilal put them off on the promise that be would definitely pay the amount after 5 P.M. that very day. The appellant and his chaprasi went away. Chunilal who did not want to pay the bribe sought the help of a journalist friend, namely Kishanlal who advised that the matter be reported to the anti-corruption department of the police for laying a trap for the arrest of the appellant. Both Chunilal and Kishanlal went to the office of the anti-corruption/department of the police and reported the matter orally as well as in writing (Ex. P/1) to Shri Tejwani, Additional Superintendent of Police in the said department. Chunilal gave currency notes worth Rs. 50.00 to Tejwani who initialled them and treated them with phenolphtthalien powder. Tejwani returned the notes to Chunilal with instructions to give them to the appellant at his shop while Tejwani and party would be watching it incognito from nearby. They all went to the shop of Chunilal before 5 P. M. and waited there till 8.30 P. M. but the appellant did not turn up there that evening. The trap party visited Chunilal's shop on Nov. 17, morning and again in the afternoon, but without any success. They came for the third time around 5 P.M. and waited in the vicinity of the shop for about an hour. They were about to leave from there when the appellant showed up around 6 P.M. The appellant entered the shop of Chunilal and took his seat on a stool lying there. Before making the payment, Chunilal wanted to make sure that Tejvani and party were around. Chunilals son, Ashok Kumar (PW. 4), signalled the arrival of the police party to his father and the latter himself saw Tejwani coming at some distance. Chunilal then gave the powdered notes to the appellant, getting an assurance from him that the municipal council would not take any action against the unauthorised construction. After pocketing the tainted notes, the appellant was about to go away on his bicycle when Tejwani surprised him and caught hold of him from behind. After introducing himself, Tejwani asked the appellant to give him the amount of Rs. 50.00 which he had accepted as bribe from Chunilal. The appellant took out the notes from his pocket and gave them to Tejwani. At first, the appellant became nervous and begged Tejwani to pardon him , on little later, he came out with the explanation that Chunilal had given the amount of Rs. 50.00 by way of insurance premium and that he had it as such. The recovered notes tallied with the notes which bad been earlier initialled by Tejwani and treated with powder. The hands of the appellant were tested for the presence of phenolphthalein powder. The hand-wash turned light pink.