NIHAL CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) NIHALCHAND has been convicted under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sec. 5 (2) read with sec. 5 (l) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment under the first count and two years' rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under the second count by the learned Special Judge, Alwar vide his judgment dated 29th September, 1963 against which the present appeal has been filed by NIHALCHAND.

(2.) THE following facts of the prosecution case are not in dispute. Sardar Singh (P. W. 4) and five other persons were detained at the Police Out Post Akbarpur on 28th January, 1964 under a plea that they shall be prosecuted under sec. 55/109 of the Code of Criminal Procedure by the Head Constable incharge of the Police Out Post, Shri Jaipal Singh. It is said that Nihalchand who was a literate constable of that Out Post was also there. THE detained persons requested the police officers that they were proceeding to their village Alapur but no heed was paid by the police officers to their request. Ultimately it was so decided that Sardarsingh should be allowed to go to village Alapur to bring his brother Laxman Singh (P. W. 1) to the Police Out Post. Sardarsingh was consequently allowed to leave the Police Out Post and he went to Alapur and brought Laxmansingh with him. THE prosecution case further is that Jaipalsingh then demanded Rs. 400/-from Laxmansingh as bribe for releasing the detained persons. It is alleged that after some higgling the matter was settled at Rs. 200/ -. Laxmansingh told the Police Officers that at that moment he had no money with him and that he would pay the same after two days. On this undertaking given by Laxmansingh the detained persons were allowed to go. Laxmansingh was not willing to bribe the Police officer and therefore he made an approach to Shri Ishwardutt, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur where he submitted a written report (Ex. P. 1) and gave twenty currency notes of ten rupees each to enable Shri Ishwardutt to lay a trap. A trap was arranged and the two motbir witnesses Latkansingh (P. W. 2) and Guruduttsingh (P. W. 3) were called by the Dy. Superintendent of Police and a memo for putting initials or the currency notes and handing them over to Laxmansingh to be given to the Police Officers was prepared. On the 31st of January, 1964 Laxmansingh with the police party and the motbirs went to village Akbarpur and, it is said, Nihalchand accused met Laxmansingh at the bus stand of Akbarpur. Nihalchand asked Laxmansingh as to what happened to the settlement that was entered into between him and the complainant on the 28th of January, 1964. THEreupon Laxmansingh passed on the initialled notes of Rs. 200/- to Nihalchand and gave a signal to the Dy. Superintendent of Police who was standing near about the bus stand. Shri Ishwardutt then asked Nihalchand to hand over the bribe money that he had taken from Laxmansingh and it is said that he handed over the notes from the pocket of his coat to the Dy. Superintendent of Police for which another memo was prepared by him. After investigation the accused was challaned in the court of the Special Judge to be tried under sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Accused Nihalchand accepted the fact of receiving the money from Laxmansingh but pleaded that the money was given to him for purchasing a cycle from the shop of his brother at Alwar. THE learned judge after the trial found that the onus which lay on the accused under sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act was not properly discharged by him and therefore he convicted him for offences referred to above.