RAJENDRA KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction passed by the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Department Cases, Bikaner on 6.6.1980 in Criminal Case No. 2/79 convicting the appellant-accused Under Sec. 161 of Indian Penal Code for one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default of payment of fine further imprisonment of six months. He also convicted the appellant Under Sec. 5(l)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to R.I. of two years and a fine of Rs. 500.00, in default further six month R.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story stating in brief is that the appellant-accused was working as an employee of Urban Improvement Trust, Sriganganagar. The Urban Improvement Trust, Sriganganagar had noted a scheme, whereunder, person whose house has fallen due to natural calamities would be given plots in Jawahar Colony on a compensatory rate of Rs. 700.00 per plot. An application was, therefore, filed under this scheme by one Subhash Chandra, PW 2. It is alleged that this application was to be processed by the accused appellant and he demanded a sum of Rs. 100.00 to process the application favourably. Rs. 40.00 was agreed to be a sum to be given to the accused Rajendra. On the complaint of Subash Chandra the trap was accordingly led on 11.8.1978 and the accused was trapped accepting the amount of Rs. 40.00. The notes were squeezed with Phenolphthalein powder and the test resulted in positive. The water turns red. The accused was, thereafter, prosecuted in due course of time. The prosecution examined six witnesses in support of its case and one witness was examined by the accused in his defence.

(3.) PW 1, Ram Laxman is an employee of the Collectorate, he deposed in great detail about the procedure of laying the trap. From the evidence of this witness and that of PW 5, Hanuman Dutt the prosecution has proved that the trap as contemplated by law was duly laid down. The fact that the accused accepted the amount in presence of witnesses also stands proved. PW 2, Subhash Chandra is complainant. A perusal of his deposition shows that no direct demand was made to him by the accused Rajendra and it was Ram Kishan who told him that the accused wants Rs. 40.00 to do the work. PW 3, G.R. Agarwal is an employee of U.I.T. and has deposed that the work of making report and forwarding the forms was of Patwari. He has deposed that: