STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. BISHAN DAS

JUDGEMENT

(1.) Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 14th December, 1990, whereby the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur, acquitted the accused respondent Bishan Das in the offences under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947').

(2.) The nub of the appellant's story is that on 1st May, 1986 PW/1 Nemi Chand submitted a written complaint Ex. P/1 before Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Ajmer stating that his brother-inlaw Shri Narayan Singh Rajguru obtained registered certificate with regard to RST No. 186/64 and CST AD13/31 in August 1980 from Commercial Taxes Department to turn a business. After some time, his Brother-in-law left for Bombay after winding up his business. In the year 1983, he had informed the Commercial Taxes Department also with regard to his business being zero (sale and purchase zero). Since his Brother-in-law had deputed him to execute the residual work, he went to Sales Tax Department many a times but the accused Bishan Das, who was the dealing clerk solicited for a bribe of 200 rupees to clear the file. After his repeated requests, the accused finally agreed to accept 50 rupees. It is alleged that the accused had called him with 50 rupees on 1st May, 1986 in the office which he did not want to pay and get an action to be taken against him.

(3.) PW/11 Mahendra Kumar Goyal formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused respondent Bishan Sindhi and co-opted two independent witnesses PW/2 Vijayashwar Prasad Mittal and PW/3 Asim Chandra Datta in whose presence the complainant gave 50 rupees of different denominations to Shri Goyal, who having the phenolphthalein powder applied upon them returned to the complainant under instruction to give the same to the accused respondent on his demand. The trap party reached the office of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer at 2.30 PM and on getting a signal from the complainant caught the accused respondent red handed with the initiated currency notes. When asked about the currency notes of 50 rupees by the Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Goyal, the respondent replied that he obtained the money from the complainant against the demand which had been raised in the name of his Brother-in-law Narayan Singh Rajguru. He refused to have accepted this money as illegal gratification. Shri Goyal seized the currency notes from the possession of the accused vide memo Ex. P/3, drew the necessary memos and after having FIR lodged Ex. P/12, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and after usual investigation sent the accused for trial to the competent Court.