RAVINDRA SAHAI SAXENA Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge for AGD cases,' Rajasthan, Jaipur, dated December 19. 1974 by which the appellant was convicted under Section 161, IPC and sentenced to six months simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/ -. in default of payment of line to undergo one week's simple imprisonment. He was also convicted under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and was sentenced to one year's simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250/ -, ltd in default of payment of fine to undergo two weeks simple imprisonment. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that in October, 1972 the accused, Ravindra Sahai Saxena was posted as Assistant Fishery Development Officer, Karauli. The Fisher Department gives licenses to the con tractors, for catching fish subject to certain conditions The relevant conditions are that during the close season, that is, from 15th of June to 15th of September, the contractor would not be allowed to catch fish, and that on the open season also the contractors should not catch fish which less than 9' in size or less than half kilo -gram in weight. An occasional check has, therefore, to be kept on the contractors Jumma son of Tajuddin resident of Karauli was one of the contractors and licence -holder for catching fish in the five rivers of Karauli. The contractor is also called from to give the names of the labourers which he may employ and the labourer so employed is usually called as the agent of the contractor. For purpose of identification of these agents of the contractor a true copy of the licence is also issued. Tdha, one of the agents of Jumma caught a bag of fish on October 25 1972, which was detected and seized by the accused and auctioned for a sum of Rs. 40/ -, The allegation was that as the illegal gratification demanded by the accused was not paid to him he adopted this means to pressurise Jumma and his agent to give the illegal gratification sought for. It was stated that the fish caught in the bag were smaller in size or less in weight, and could not have been netted by the contractor or his agents. It is said that the true copy of the licence was taken away by the accused who demanded Rs. 200/ - for returning the same. The prosecution case is that the accused who demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 200/ p.m. or Rs 100/ - every fortnight, otherwise, the fish which the contract I or his agents would net, would be caught and auctioned as they contravened the terms and conditions of the licence being either small in size or less in weight. Jumma wanted time to arrange for the morsey. It is said that jumma come to Jaipur on October 31, 1972 and lodged a report Ex P/12 with the Inspector General ACD, Jaipur. The Deputy Superintendent of Police. Tonk, within whose jurisdiction this area fell, was directed to arrange for a trap, but he was not available and other Deputy Superintendent of Police, ACD, Crime Branch, Shri D.G. Malik, was deputed to arrange the trap. He took an application from Jumma and directed him to meet him the next day, at the Dak Bungilow, Karauli along with Rs. 210/ -. As planned, Shri D.C. Malik, Jumma and his partner Kamaliudin met at the Dak Bungalow, Karauli in the morning of 1 -11 -1972. After having discussed the trap plan and having inspected the house of Jumma, it was decided that the trap should be laid at the house of jumma Jumma produced two currency notes of Rs. 100/ - each, which were initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Head Cons' able Shri Hanumant Singh applied phenothaline powder to these two notes. These notes were then given to Jumma with the instructions to give them u the accused in his hands when he demands the bribe. Kamaluddin and Rutubuddin were directed to be present to hear the talks and to witness the payment Bansilal constable was also instructed to in the room on upstairs where the payment was to be made. The Deputy Superintendent of Police ACD Shi Malik along with his party men waited in the room below with closed doors. The prosecution case further is that about 4.30 p.m. Jumma came with the accused, Ravindra Sahai Saxena, and went upstairs. Jumma and his partner Kamaluddin pleaded with the accused that the amount of Rs. 200/ - as bribe was on the higher side, and tint it should be reduced to Rs. 150/ -. It is said that the accused did not agree to reduce the amount, but sail that if Rs. 200/ - per month are paid to him by was of illegal certification, then the contractor and his agents can catch any types of fish irrespective of its size or Weight Later on, when the accused was taking tea with the cup in one hand and the saucer in the order Jumma offered Rs. 200/ -. He asked Jumma to keep the notes in his pocket of the paints which was accordingly done by the contractor Jumma Jumma then asked to bring 'pan' (betel) and this served as a singal to inform the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri D.C. Malik of the fact that the money has been paid to the accused. On receiving the signal, The Deputy Superintendent of Police came to the room along with his party men introduced himself to the accused. He feed the accused to take out the money which he had received by way of the illegal gratification. On a search being taken, a true copy of the licence and notes of Rs. 200/ - were found The number of those notes so found along with he licence in the pocket of the pant of the accused tallied with the umbers which had been noted by the Dy. S.P. at the time when these notes were initialed. The hands of the accused were tested for the presence of Phenotahline powder by putting them in water mixed with the sodium carbonate. The water turned out to be of light pink colour. It was poured into a bottle and sealed. The accused was then directed to change his clothes ad when the pocket of his pant was again tested by mixing sodium carbonate water, the water turned dark pink. This was also poured in a separate of the and sealed. After the preparation of recovery memos, the accused was Trusted, but later on released on bill. On a chemical analysis, the contents both these bottles were found to contain phenothaline powder and Sodium carbonate. After having obtained the necessary sanction for prosecuting the accused from the Director of Animal Husbandary, Rajasthan, Jaipur fie accused was challenged under Section 161, IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) THE learned Special Judge, ACD after examining the withnesses came to the conclusion that the guilt has been brought home to the accused and the accused was accordingly convicted as stated above.