PRADIP SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated 24.1.86 passed by the Special Judge (ACD Cases) Rajasthan Jaipur, who has convicted accused appellant Pradeep Singh for offence under Sec. 161 Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(1 )(d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to RI for one year on the first count and one year's RI with a fine of Rs. 50.00and in default of payment, to further undergo one month's RI on the second count, and further directed that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly the relevant facts for disposal of this appeal are that on 27.1.83, appellant Pradeep Singh was working as Forest Guard (Mines Trespass) in the office of the Forest Ranger, Ajmer. He demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 500.00per month from complainant Banshilal (in whose favour a lease of mine's quarry in Madar Hill area was granted on 18.4.78 for five years) alleging that the latter had trespassed on the forest land. Banshilal assured to pay the amount by evening of 27.1.83. He, however, reported the matter to the Additional Superintendent of Police (A.C.D.) Ajmer by submitting a written report Ex.P 2. PW 9 Shiv Prasad Sharma, Additional Superintendent of Police in the presence of two motbirs laid a trap on 27.1.83 and recovered an amount of Rs. 500.00 from the appellant.

(3.) A case was registered against the appellant and after usual investigation and procuring the sanction for prosecution from the competent authority, a challan was filed in the court of the learned Special Judge (ACD cases). The appellant denied his indictment and claimed trial. To prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as nine witnesses. The appellant in his examination recorded plea Under section 313 Code Criminal Procedure admitted that he was a public servant and posted as Forest Guard for Madar Hill area. He, however, categorically denied that he had demanded illegal gratification from Banshilal. He asserted that he has been falsely implicated. He claimed that he had stopped persons including complainant Banshilal, who had illegally trespassed on forest land and were excavating minerals therefrom, that Banshilal is the servant of a mine lessee and that he had registered a case against Kanaram, on whom a penalty of Rs. 500.00was imposed. He further claimed that on 27.1.1983 the said Banshilal had come to him for depositing the said penalty, whereupon he had asked him to go to the Forest Officer for depositing the same, that at the time he was sleeping on his bed and that Banshilal forcibly placed Rs. 500.00 on the bed touching his palms. In his defence, he examined four witnesses.