MADAN LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 25-9-1972 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant Madan Lal as follows:

(2.) THE appellant was a Survey Amin in the Settlement Department in circle Amer, District Jaipur at the relevant time. One Kushlaram P. W. 1 asked him to survey his land and demarcate it into separate holdings for himself and his six brothers. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe for doing the job. The bargain was settled at Bs. 50/- which also Kushlaram was not prepared to pay. He approached the Anti-Corruptton Department upon, which a trap was laid on 28-12-1970 in Nawlakha Bagh, Amer where the land of Kushlaram was situated. He produced five currency notes each of Rs. 10/- before the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Ram Singh to which phenolphthalein powder was applied. When the accused went to the field of Kushlaram and began his survey, he demanded the amount Kushlaram then, paid him the five currency notes which the accused placed inside the pocket of his coat From the field Kushlaram and the witnesses Moolchand, Motilal and Ramnarain went to the hotel of Ganesh and took tea. When the accused started from there on bicycle, a pre-arranged signal was given by Kushlaram and the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police came and stopped the accused. He was asked to produce the money pocketed by loom, but the accused denied to have accepted any money. Search of his person was taken and from his pocket the aforesaid currency notes were recovered. The hands of the accused were washed and the pink colour of the water showed that his hands had been soiled with the phenolphthalein powder. The pocket of the coat was also washed and the water thereof also turned into pink colour.

(3.) THE plea of the accused was that when he was surveying the field, he was accompanied by Kanhaiyalal D. W. 1 and Kalicharan D. W. 2. Kushlaram wanted him to show six holdings of the field and offered him money which he did not accept and returned the amount and it was how his hands were soiled with the powder. Kushlaram went away. Meanwhile the appellant gave his coat to Kalicharan. Kalicharan went to take tea with the coat Kushlaram met him there. Kalicharan returned the coat to the accused who put on the same as usual and it was then that the police party arrived and the money was recovered from the pocket of his coat. The substance of the plea therefore, is that the money was planted in his pocket without his knowledge.