STATE OF RAJASTHAN Vs. ODERMAL

JUDGEMENT

(1.) LEARNED Special Judge, Ganganagar, by his judgment, dated May 3, 1967, convicted Oder Mal under S. 165-A. , I P. C. , and fixed penalty at a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.

(2.) THE prosecution story is simple. On July 21, 1962 Ramdan, S. H. O. Police Station, Sadar, Ganganagar, was investigating a case (Sardara vs. Shri Ram and Jas Ram) under sec. 324, I. P. C. Oder Mal Sindhi, Sarpanch. Hakmabad, and Kesarmal Jat, a resident of village Khanwawali, approached the Station House Officer Ramdan and offered him Rs. 100/-, as illegal gratification, to get the case compounded. Oder Mal also submitted an application Ex. P. 2 to the Station House Officer. Endorsement on that petition at the place marked between A and B was made by Ramdan. THE Station House Officer also made an entry relating to this event in the general diary Ex. P. 7. THE same day at about 6 50 p. m. , both the accused again approached Ramdan in his office at the Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar. THE accused told the Station House Officer that somehow or other the case would have to be closed and in lieu of that they repeated their offer of Rs. 100/ -. Ramdan refused to take the same. THE two accused then left the police station, saying that they would come back shortly. An entry to that effect too was made by Ramdan in the Rojnamcha, which is marked Ex P. 8. Ramdan then sent a report Ex. P. 9 to Shri Tej Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Department, that very day at about 7-30 p. m. Tej Singh, accompanied by Sugan Singh, S. I. , Mohan Lal, S. I. , Magniran constable, and Hari Kishan witness, came to Ramdan. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police called another witness Tulsiram. On inquiry made by the Dy. S. P. , Ramdan spelt out whole incident to him. THE Dy. S. P. , then directed Ramdan to keep sitting in his office and to ring the bell, if and when the money was offered to him. He also asked the witnesses to watch the occurrence. Soon after both the accused came to Ramdan. THEy asked him to close the proceedings of the case against Shri Ram and Jas Raj. THEreafter the accused Oder Mal took out 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/- each from his pocket and offered them to Ramdan. Ramdan declined to accept the same. Oder Mal, however, persisted that he should show no hesitation in taking the bribe. Ramdan then rang the bell. Soonafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the witnesses entered the room of Ramdan. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police caught hold of the hand of Oder Mal and seized 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/-, each under memo Ex. P. 3. Site plan Ex. P. 10 was also prepared on the spot. THE Anti-corruption Department, after completing the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet to the Special Judge, Ganganagar, against the accused Oder Mal and Kesra-ram to face trial under sec. 165-A, I. P. C. After recording preliminary statements of the accused persons under sec. 251-A, Cr. P. C. , the trial court framed charges against the accused under the above section of the Penal Code. THE accused denied to have committed any offence. In support of its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. In their statements, recorded under S. 342, Cr. P. C. the accused negated the prosecution version. Oder Mal further stated that he was the Sarpanch of Hakmabad for the last 6 years. One Ladu Badri approached the Police against Orn Prakash, an irrigation employee, at the Police Station, Ganganagar Ladu was beaten by J. B. Jangir Singh. He made a complaint to O. P. Tandon against Jangir Singh. But he was told to withdraw the complaint. He, however, declined to do so. In the present case Ramdan caused injuries to Sardara. He wanted to get the case compromised. He, therefore, told the Station House Officer, Ramdan to get the case compounded. Ramdan said that the case could be compounded if the injured was to be given some compensation. In that connection he offered Rs. 100/- to Ramdan and that he was wrongly entangled due to ill will. In defence Oder Mal, besides examining himself as DW 2 examined DW 1 Lal Singh. THE trial court acquitted Kesaram for want of adequate evidence against him. THE accused Odermal was found guilty u/s. 165-A, Penal Code, and was sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence this appeal by Oder Mal. THE State has also filed a revision petition for awarding the accused substantive sentence of imprisonment. As both the appeal and the revision arise out of the same case, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.