GANPAT LAL Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Sessions Court (Prevention of Corruption Act), Jodhpur dated 2.5.2000, whereby he convicted the accused appellant Ganpatlal under section 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 2 and Sec. 7 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, hereinafter referred-to as "the Act" and sentenced him to two years' R.I. and a fine of Rs. 3000.00 and in default, to further undergo six months' R.I. on each count. Both the substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution story is that a written report Ex.P.1 was lodged before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jodhpur by one Deva Ram on 10.2.95 that a khatedari land bearing Khasra No. 689/2 is situated at village Bhavad in the name of his uncle Kalu Ram. Since his uncle Kalu Ram is old and doing worship of 'Mataji Mandir' and having no issue, he being his nephew, is looking after his uncle's social and family responsibilities. The land is situated on the road and its 'tarmim' is due. For this purpose and also to obtain the copies of 'Jamabandi' and 'Girdawri', he met with the 'Patwari' of Bhavad viz; accused Ganpat Lal on 9.2.1995, upon which the accused appellant told that his uncle had got this land free of cost, therefore, he was required to pay Rs. 32,000.00 for the same and ultimately, the amount of Rs. 25,000.00 was settled for the aforesaid purpose. On the basis of this report, the Additional S.P. told complainant to bring the amount of Rs. 25,000.00 on 11.2.95 and on that day, when the complainant appeared before him, he arranged for the trap by calling motbirs Jagannath and Nathmal. The Additional S.P. signed fifty currency notes of Rs. 500.00 each with his initials by smearing the same with the phenolphthalein powder. Necessary instructions were given for the trap to the complainant. The trap party reached at the residence of accused appellant, where accused met. Dy.Superintendents of Police Damodar Vyas and Parbat Singh caught hold of both the hands of the accused. Upon asking, the accused appellant admitted to have received Rs. 25,000.00 but said that he has not accepted the bribe of Rs. 24,000.00 and handed over Rs. 1000.00 to Deva Ram back. Thereafter, hands of the accused appellant were washed, the colour of which turned into pink, which were sealed in bottles marked R-1 and R-2 and L-1 and L-2. The currency notes were taken out by motbir Jagannath from the pocket of accused appellant Ganpat Lal, which were forty eight of Rs. 500.00 each having initials of Addl.S.P. The amount of Rs. 1000.00 which was returned by accused appellant Ganpatlal and other documents relating to trace map and Jamabandi, were taken in possession from the complainant. Thereafter, the sanction was obtained and accused appellant was challaned under section 7 and 13(1)(d) read with Sec. 13(2) of the Act. The accused was charged accordingly to which he pleaded not guilty. The prosecution examined 8 witnesses. The statement of the accused was recorded under section 313 Cr.PC. He produced Kalu Ram, DW 1 and Gordhan, DW 2 in his defence. After hearing the arguments, the learned trial Judge convicted and sentenced the accused appellant as above.

(3.) It has been vehemently argued by the learned counsel for the appellant that whole trap proceedings are concocted and false because it has been admitted by Deva Ram that he filed the report on 10.2.95 but the same was returned to him in absence of money and he filed the report on 11.2.95 but the report is of 10.2.95 being antedated. There is no evidence of return of Rs.1000.00 back to complainant. It is highly improbable that a Patwari (accused appellant) will demand a sum of Rs.25,000.00 for issuing copies of Jamabandi, Girdawri etc. from his fellow Patwari (complainant). Learned counsel submits that the field was in the name of Kalu Ram, and Deva Ram (complainant), who is the nephew of Kalu Ram, was not having good relations with his uncle and he wanted to snatch the amount of Rs. 25,000.00 which was the money of Kalu Ram to be handed over to the purchaser Gordhan, DW 2 of the said land through accused Ganpatlal upon whom he was having trust. This Kalu Ram, who is the owner of the land, has been withheld by the prosecution and on the contrary, he has been produced by the defence along with the person to whom he handed over this money viz; Gordhan, DW 2. According to the learned counsel, when the mutation and the 'tarmim' took place prior to the trap, there was no occasion for having any pending work and nobody will pay Rs. 25,000.00 for issuing copies of those papers. According to the learned counsel, the complainant Deva Ram is having a bad record. He has been prosecuted in some forgery case and to snatch the money of his uncle, he arranged this false trap by bringing money from someone else, who has not been produced by the prosecution. In support of his contention, he further submits that one of the motbirs is hostile and two superintendents of police viz Damodar Vyas and Parbat Singh have not been examined by the prosecution. Thus, the case of the prosecution according to the learned counsel suffers from infirmities and the order of conviction deserves to be set aside.