JAGDISH KISHORE Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated Dec. 5,1977 passed by the Special Judge. Anti-Corruption. Jaipur by which appellant Jagdish Kishore was held quality under section 161 I.P.C. and under Sec. 5(1) (d) (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and was sentenced to one years S.I. and a fine of Rs. 200/ in default of payment of fire to undergo one months S.I. on each count with an order that both the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.

(2.) Briefly stated the facts of the case leading to the trial of the appellant and the present appeal are that on April 3, 1975 Niranjan Singh complainant went to the out post Anti Corruption Department Shri Ganganagar and filed an application before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption mentioning therein that three or four years back, villagers had instituted a false case under section 376 I.P.C. against him in which he was acquitted but the Court had bound him for Rs. 1000/ to be of good behaviour for a period of one year. That, because of enmity the villagers instituted a false case under section 325 I.P.C. against him and then filed an application in the Court of Sessions Judge, Sri Ganganagar for forfeiting his bail bonds of Rs. 1000.00 furnished in the first case. That, in those proceedings Jagdish Kishore, Reader of the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Sri-Ganganagar was harassing the complainant and had taken from him ten or fifteen rupees a number of times. That, on the date of hearing proceeding the date of hearing of April 3, 1975 Jagdish Kishore, Reader demanded Rs 15.00 from him That, the complainant gave Rs. 5.00 on that day and assured to give Rs. 10.00 on the next day At this, the Reader warned him the it if he would not bring the money, he would get his bail-bonds forfeited. Mangilal (P. W. 2) and Mohanlal (P W. 3) motbirs were also there when the trap-proceedings were started by Additional Superintendent of Police Baboo Lal Sharma (P. W. 8). Two currency notes of Rs. 5.00 denomination each were given by the complainant to the Additional Superintendent of Police The Additional Superintendent of Police initialed those notes and applied phenolphthalein powder on them. Those notes were given to the complainant to be given to Jagdish Kishore Reader. On April 3, 1975, the case of Niranjan Singh was called and the appellant demanded the money and the complainant gave the money to him. He then gave the signal and the trap-party reached there and apprehended Jagdish Kishore. The Additional Superiendent of Police asked Jagdish Kishore to dip his hands in the glass of water. The water turned pink. On being asked to give notes of Rs 5.00 each the appellant took out the notes from the pocket of his pant and gave them. The numbers of the notes tallied with the numbers mentioned in the memo prepared at the time of the notes being entrusted to the complaint for being given to the appellant. The pockets of the pant of the appellant was dipped in the water and the colour of the water turned red. The report of the Chemical Examiner was that the samples sent were found to contain sodium carbonate and phenophthalein. Charge-sheet against the appellant was filed in the Court of Special Judge, Anti Corruption, Sri Ganganagar. The required sanction for prosecution was obtained and the learned trial Judge charge-sheeted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and on his denying the charge and claiming to be tried, proceeded with the trial. Eight witnesses were examined by the prosecution The appellant in his statement under section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure denied the allegations of demanding or accepting any illegal gratification from the complainant and stated the Mukna Ram L.D.C. (D.W.I) of the Munsif Court, Raisinghnagar had borrowed Rs. 10/ from him on March 27, 1975 at the shop of Matu Kam Barbar and on March 31, 1975 when Niranjan Singh complainant was coming to Ganganagar Matu Ram sent that amount with him to be given to the appellant. Eight witnesses were examined from the defence side to substantiate the defence version. The learned trial Judge placed reliance on the prosecution case evidence and discarded the defence version and passed the judgment under appeal.

(3.) I heard Mr. M.L. Garg, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R.K. Soni, learned Public Prosecutor for the State.