MANNO RAM MEENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Heard Mr. Suresh Sahni, the learned counsel for the petitioner, and Mr. G.S. Rathore, the learned Public Prosecutor for the State.

(2.) The brief facts of the case are that on 20.8.2012, one Gokul Ram Sharma and his brother, Kundan Lal Sharma, submitted a report before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department. In the complaint, they claimed that there was a fight which had ensued between their brothers for which a FIR, namely FIR No.172/12, was submitted before the Police Station Kathoomar. Their brothers had also submitted a FIR against them, namely FIR No.173/12. The SHO, Police Station Kathoomar, Mr. Ram Niwas had demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.80,000/- from them. Therefore, they submitted an application before the Superintendent of Police, Alwar. Consequently, the Superintendent of Police, Alwar transferred the investigation to Mr. Manno Ram Meena, Deputy Superintendent of Police (the present petitioner before this court). They were informed by the petitioner's reader, Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, that the petitioner is demanding a bribe of Rs.1 Lac. Mr. Tiwari informed them that in case the said bribe is not paid, then they would be arrested and put behind the bars. He also informed them that in case the bribe amount is duly paid, then the opposite party would be arrested for offence under Section 308 IPC and in the FIR filed by the opposite party, the police would submit a negative Final Report. However, in case the bribe amount is not paid, then the complainants would be arrested for offences under Section 307 and 452 IPC and would be thrown behind the bars. The complainants further claimed that since they were threatened, they paid Rs.42,000/- to Mr. Rajendra Tiwari, the Reader. For sometime, no investigation was done by the petitioner. Therefore, on 19.8.2012 they spoke to the petitioner. But the petitioner told them to speak to him on 20.8.2012. The complainants further claimed that they have no animosity either with the petitioner, or with his Reader. They do not owe them any money. Therefore, they requested that some action should be taken against the petitioner and others.

(3.) The Additional Superintendent of Police was convinced about the truthfulness of the complaint lodged by the complainant Gokul Ram Sharma and Kundan Lal Sharma. Therefore, he showed them as to how a digital voice recorder works. He also told them to carry on a dialogue conversation with the present petitioner and with his Reader, Rajendra Tiwari, with regard to bribe being demanded by them. He also told them to tape record the conversation. The Additional Superintendent of Police sent them for taping the conversation.