PRAMOD KUMAR Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated May 12, 1988 whereby, the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur, convicted the accused -appellant Pramod Kumar in the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1947') and sentenced as under:

(2.) THE prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: That on March 14, 1986 the complainant Ram Karan submitted a written report Ex.P/9 before the Additional S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Ajmer stating that he was a resident of village Jaswantpura, Tehsil Sarwar, District Ajmer. His father Bhura was a khatedar tenant of agricultural land bearing khasra Nos. 2085, 2088, 2089, 2090, 2092, 2092/2611 measuring 13 bighas 1 biswas. There was a well on the land in respect of which there had arisen a dispute between complainant and the Raigors of the village. Since the complainant wanted to prefer an appeal, he required copies of the khasras. It is alleged that the complainant met the concerned Patwari on March 11, 1986 and prayed for issuing the copies of concerned khasras. The accused Halka Patwari solicited for a bribe of Rs. 100/ - from him. Thereafter, the complainant met the Patwari Halka in the morning of March 14, 1986 and submitted an application for obtaining copies of Jamabandi, whereupon the Patwari gave out that he would not accept an amount less than Rs. 50/ - in any case. Patwari agreed to accept the amount at the Patwarghar in the village Tantoti. Since, the complainant did not want to grease the palms of the accused, he therefore lodged the report Ex.P/9 whereupon, PW -8 Mahender Kumar Govil, Addl. S.P., formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused -appellant and co -opted two independent witnesses.

(3.) THE accused -appellant was indicted for the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined in all 8 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. the accused claimed innocence and pleaded that neither he solicited for bribe nor he obtained the same. He has been implicated in this case on account of the animosity with the complainant.