ASHA RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) ON 27. 10. 1979, appellant Asha Ram, Forest Guard received a sum of Rs. 125/- as bribe from PW. 1 Moti Gujar. It was alleged that complainant Moti Gujar had cut some wooden prop from the forest with the consent of appellant, for which the complainant had earlier paid Rs. 50/- to the appellant and at the time when complainant was carrying the prop, the appellant demanded Rs. 125/- more. Aggrieved by the demand, the complainant submitted an application before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Bureau, Sawaimadhopur, upon which the police arranged for trap and caught the appellant immediately after he accepted the amount of bribe in the Hotel of one Ram Narain situated in village Phalodi and recovered the amount of bribe. Entire formalities were completed at the spot and after taking necessary sanction for prosecution, the appellant was charge sheeted.

(2.) ON the basis of evidence and material on record, the learned trial Court framed charges under Section 161 IPC and Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses. After the prosecution evidence was over, the accused was examined under Sec. 313 Cr. P. C. In his explanation, the accused appellant stated that present case is merely an out come of animus which the complainant had against him inasmuch as the complainant used to cut wood from the forest and he being the Forest Guard used to prevent him from doing so. As regards the amount of Rs. 125/- recovered from him, the appellant explained that complainant had given this amount for payment to one Hardev from whom complainant had borrowed. In his defence the appellant has examined DW 1 Munna Lal, DW 2 Ram Karan, DW 3 Hardev and DW 4 Kishan Gopal.

(3.) CONSEQUENTLY, this appeal succeeds and is hereby allowed. The conviction of the appellant is set aside and he is acquitted of the offences charged with. The appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. .