SHRIMAN NARAIN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6th December. 1978, passed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.D) Rajasthan Jaipur, whereby he convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant, Srimam Narain, as under: <FRM>JUDGEMENT_44_LAWS(RAJ)3_1988.html</FRM> Both the substantive sentences were directed to run concurrently. Facts : The appellant on the relevant date was working as Enforcement Inspector in Food and Supplies Department, Nadbai town in Bharatpur district. Haribhagwan Gera and his brother, Mohanlal, were carrying on business in the name and style of M/s Shyamdas Manoharlal, being authorised dealer of cement. On July 9, 1975, the appellant being Enforcement Inspector came to the shop of Haribhagwan and Mohanlal, and inspected the same and thereafter as alleged the appellant stated that the distribution of the cement by the aforesaid firm %as not in order though the complainant Haribhagwan claimed that the distribution was made according to the prescribed norms and there was no irregularity or illegality in distribution of the cement. It was further alleged that although there was no irregularity in the distribution of the cement even then the appellant in the capacity of the Enforcement Inspector seized two distribution registers and one cash book; and at that time the appellant is alleged to have stated that the godown for keeping the stock of the cement, is not declared one. On this, the complainant informed the appellant that the godown was quite old and it has been used for keeping cement for a long time. The aforesaid registers #and the receipt were taken away by the accused-appellant.

(2.) Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) stated that after two hours of the inspection, h; went to the appellant in order to take back the registers, receipts etc. and requested him for the same but appellant is alleged to have directed him to meet him (accused) at his residence in the evening, on 9.7.75. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is B alleged to have again gone to the residence of the appellant and asked for return I of the registers etc. and at that time, the accused is alleged to have demanded Rs. 500.00 as bribe - then Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) is alleged to have told lie accused that he would come in the morning of July 10. 1975 on which date, Hari Bhagwan is also alleged to have gone to the residence of the accused in the morning and again repeated the request for the documents

(3.) Further the case of the prosecution is that Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) did not want to pay the bribe to the accused and so, he decided to get the accused trapped by the anti-corruption department Thus, the informent alongwith Ramlal (PW 2) and one Jagdish Prasad went to Bharatpur and their they contacted Dy. Superintendent of Police of the anti-corruption department, and presented written report to him along-with five G. C notes of denomination of Rs. 100.00 and who after necessary formalities fulfilled, arranged a trap. The informant alongwith the witnesses and the police party went to Nadbai. Hari Bhagwan (PW 3) took his brother Mohanlal (PW l) with him, and went inside the house of the accused while others were standing outside. It has been further alleged that when the informant went inside, he was sitting in the courtyard alongwith Sujan Singh, co-tenant of the house The accused went inside room, alongwith informant and brother, where the money is alleged to have been paid to the accused which was received by the accused and the same was kept by the accused beneath the pad on his table. The accused is alleged to have returned registers receipts etc- to Mohanlal After this, the informant gave signal on which police party and motbirs entered the house of the accused. The G C. notes were recovered and the seizure memo of the Registers etc. was prepared. The hands of the appellant-were dipped in sodium carbonate mixture. The hand wash of the accused appellant was found positive for phenolpthale in powder. The band wash water was preserved in a clean glass bottle and sealed in the presence of the motbirs.