NARAIN SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This case has a very curious history for pralongation of the litigation in criminal courts. Narain Singh who was a Sarpanch of Panchayat Banathala, was prosecuted for an offence under section 161 Penal Code and section 5.(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 466 Penal Code for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 100.00for acquitting Nandram PW I in a complaint case filed by Gullaram before the Panchayat. The allegation against the appellant was that the judgment of conviction was written by the Panchayat on which the appellant and other Panchas had put their signatures. But later on after accepting the illegal gratification from Nandram the judgment was torn off and another judgment of acquittal was passed. About a year after the matter came to the lime light and Narain Singh was prosecuted after taking the sanction of the State Government for offences under section 161, Penal Code and section 5 (1) (d) (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act. These proceedings stated in the year 1959. Narain Singh was acquitted of the charge under section 161 Penal Code and section (1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act but he was convicted for an offence under section 466 IPC. On appeal this Court discovered that no sanction was obtained by the prosecution for prosecuting Narain Singh for an offence U/S 466 Penal Code and, therefore, he was discharged. The prosecution obtained fresh sanction from the Government to prosecute the appellant for offence under section 466 Penal Code and a fresh trial started.

(2.) A plea was taken by Narain Singh that a compromise was entered between Gulla and Nandram before the judgment was pronounced and the same was- filed before the Panchayat and on that basis Nandram was acquitted. The charge of forgery which was made against the appellant was nothing but a result of political, rivalry in the village. The Secretary of the Panchayat was produced in defence to show that document Ex. D. I which is said to be a compromise deed between Gullaram and Nandram was duly produced before the Panchayat and it was on the basis of that document that previously written judgment was not pronounced and torn off and accused Nandram in that case was acquitted. Gullaram has also come in the witness box on behalf of the defence to show that there was a compromise in that criminal case between Nandram and Gullaram.

(3.) Narain Singh denied to have appended his signatures on document Ex. P. 1 which is said to be a judgment of conviction against Nandram. No evidence has been led by the prosecution in the second trial to show that the document Ex. P. 1 was really signed by Narain Singh. The learned Judge while deciding this question whether Ex. P. I did contain the signatures of Narain Singh relied on the testimony of the witnesses who were examined in the previous trial. This procedure is obviously erroneous and was uncalled for.