AHMED KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) APPELLANT Ahmed Khan was tried for the charges under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Bikaner. Vide judgment dated January 18,1980 the appellant was convicted for the charges and sentenced to R.I. for one year and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo three months R.I. on the first count and R.I. for six months and a fine of Rs. 200/ -, in default of payment of fine to undergo R.I. for one month on the second count.

(2.) THE facts of the case as disclosed in the First Information Report Ex,P/7 filed by Abdul Hakim on June 29,1977, before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, (Anti Corruption) Bikaner are that, he i.e. the complainant had constructed a varandah without permission. That, while construction was going oh appellant Ahmed Khan posing to be the Jamadar of Municipal Council, demanded money as bribe so that he may get the matter settled. That despite his making the demand three or four times money was not paid and he threatened the complainant that action will be taken against him. That, on June 29,1977, the appellant demanded the money at Which Abdual Hakim told him that he would reach near the shop of Mangilal Panwala or at the hotel of Munikji at 11.00 A.M. and would give the money there. That, as the complainant did not intend to give the bribe, he approached the Anti Corruption Department and lodged the complaint. He gave five currency notes of ten Rupees denomination to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Deputy Superintendent of Police initialed them and applied phenolphthalein powder on them. Trap was arranged. Kamal Kishore and Rameshwar were taken as witnesses to the trap. Teg Bahadur (P.W.4), Dy.S.P., Anti Corruption remained at some distance and asked the complainant and the witnesses to give the signal as soon as the money was given by the complainant. Abdul Hakim decoy along with the witnesses went twice to the place where accused was to meet him but he was not available. They then went third time to the hotel and stayed there. The appellant went there. Abdul Hakim and Ahmed Khan sat on the chairs at one table and Kamal Kishore was sitting behind them. Rameshwar was at some distance. Ahmed Khan and Abdul Hakim talked a while and the latter passed the money to the former. Abdul Hakim then took out his aspects and cleaned it which was to be taken as signal by the trap party. The Deputy Superintendent of Police with his staff rushed to the site. Ahmed Khan threw the notes on the floor. He was asked to clean his hands. The water turned red. The notes were taken from the ground and sealed. Appellant was arrested. The case against him was registered and chargesheet was filed in the Court of Special Judge, (Anti Corruption), Bikaner. The learned Judge chargesheeted him and recorded his plea. He denied the charges and claimed to be tried. Five witnesses were examined by the prosecution. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, Ahmed Khan denied the allegations levelled against him and stated that he was appointed as 'Bhisti' (water carrier) and not as Jamadar in the Municipality and that he had entered into a transaction of supply the bricks with Abdul Hakim who was dealing in the business of bricks. That, when Abdul Hakim did not supply the bricks, he demanded the Rs. 50/ - given as advance to Abdul Hakim back who asked him to reach the Hotel and assured him that he would return the money. That, it was that money which was given to him at the hotel and not any bribe. The learned Judge believed the prosecution case and passed the judgment under appeal.

(3.) MR . Sandeep Mehta, learned Counsel for the appellant strenuously contended that the defence version is plausible and the judgment of the learned trial Judge is not justiciable as he has over looked the evidence of the prosecution witness Kamal Kishore and the entries in the memos about the defence taken by the appellant. It had also been argued that the appellant was not holding the post of importance so as to enable him to help Abdul Hakim. The learned Counsel, emphasized that it is not a case in which the decoy might be an innocent and ignorant person of the post so as to give the money to anybody demanding from him. Rather, he was a sub -inspector of Customs Department who had been dismissed from service on the charge of taking bribe. That, he had been to Municipality a number of times, as stated by himself, and he could have very well known the position and the post, the appellant was holding.