GHASI RAM Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 19. 9. 79 passed by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jaipur, convicting the accused-appellant for the offences u/ss. 161 IPC and Sec. 5 (0 (d) read with sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to one year's RI and a fine of Rs. 200/-, in default of fine, to further undergo two month's SI.

(2.) RAM Karan on 1. 7. 76 at 8,15 a. m. submitted a report Ex. P. 2. to the Dy S. P. Anti Corruption Department (ACD ). Ajmer alleging that Bhanwar Lal Gujar of Indoli village had purchased 6 Bighas 10 Biswas of land from one Phool Kanwar (widow of Mool Singh Bhati) resident of Almas for Rs. 500/- by a written document, but Phool Kanwar did not get the document registered in favour of Bhanwar Lal and on the contrary got the registry of the land in favour of her son-in-law Jagpal Singh. Jagpal Singh, on the basis of the registered-deed insisted upon Bhanwar Lal to vacate the possession of the land, but Bhanwarlal refused to do so. It was alleged that Bhanwarlal's land was being cultivated by RAM Karan. Jagpal Singh filed a criminal case for committing theft against Bhanwarlal, his wife and mother alleging that they had removed the harvested crop. Jagpal Singh, thereafter, transferred this 6 bighas 10 biswas of land by a registered-deed in favour of Bhanwarlal son of Deo Karan Gujar of Hindoli and when this registry was shown in the theft case by RAM Karan to the Magistrate, the latter asked him to produce the copy of Gust-Girdawari. Since the certified copy of Gust-Girdawari was required RAM Karan approached the Patwari of the area Shri Ghasi RAM about 6-7 days earlier but he did not give the copy inspite of demanding it several times. He further alleged that he met the Patwari yesterday also and he demanded Rs. 50/- for the copy. The complai-nant did not want to give the bribe but wanted to trap the Patwari, and handed over 5 notes of Rs. 10/- each to Dy. S. P. On receipt of this report the Dy. S. P. called two motbirs RAM Pal and Bankat Lal along with staff started for village Almas. A demonstration about the utility of the phenolphthalein powder was given to them and after preparing document he handed over the currency notes putting his initials on them. Then trapped party went to village Almas. Dy. S P. and the party waited at a distance and the decoy RAM Karan was sent to Pat-wafi and the witnesses were asked to follow him. Then the decoy RAM Karan handed over the money to Patwari Ghasi RAM and when the signal was received from him, the Dy. S. P. reached near the Patwari Ghasi RAM and after introdu-cing himself asked the accused to hand over the money. This fact is also mention-ed in the report Ex. P. 2 as well as the memo Ex. P. 5 that immediately when the amount was recovered from the possession of Ghasi RAM, he told to the Dy. S. P. that RAM Karan had given this amount to him saying that this amount is the balance of revenue rent payable by Jawahara S/o Hardeo. After completing the investigation and obtaining sanction to prosecute from the Collector, Ajmer the challan was submitted before the Special Judge ACD Jaipur,

(3.) WHEN the Dy. S. P. recovered Rs. 50/- from the possession of the accused Ghasi Ram, he immediately replied that Ram Karan gave this amount Rs. . 50/- towards revenue rent of Jawahara. This fact which was stated by the accused has been noted in the report Ex. P. 2 and memo Ex. P. 5 by the Dy S. P. So this explanation is not an afterthought explanation by the accused, but it was promptly given to the Dy. S. P. by the accused. The probability of he explanation is to be seen. No doubt, when the amount is recovered from the possession of a person the presumption would be that he demanded illegal gratification and that amount was of illegal gratification, but, if he submits an explanation and that explanation is a probable explanation then the presumption is rebutted. In this case the accused has given the explanation of receiving Rs. 50/- from Ramkaran. He has admitted that Ram Karan had paid him this money but it was paid towards the revenue rent due to Jawahara. Whether this explanation is probable is to be judged from the evidence on record, and for this purpose I have gone through the evidence of this case.