MOHD. YASIN KHAN Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) In this criminal appeal, the judgment dated 3rd March, 1979 of the Special Judge (Anti-Corruption cases) Rajasthan, Jaipur convicting the appellant, Mohd. Yasin Khan, under Sec. 5(1) (d) r/w Sec-5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, ('Act' for short), and Sec. 161, IPC, and sentencing him - u/s 161, Penal Code - one year's R.I., u/s 5(l)(d) r/w S. 5(2) of the Act - one year's R. I. with a fine of Rs. 200.00 (in default, one month's R.I.); is sought to be set aside. Factual matrix-

(2.) Mohd. Yasin Khan, the appellant was a Patwari, Circle Malsisar (district Jhunjhunu) against whom in his written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Department), Jhunjhunu. ('Dy. S. P.' for short) made on 4.11.1974, Santosh Kumar Hakim (PW 6), the decoy alleged that the Patwari (appellant) entered the names of the labourers working on the land bearing khasras No. 52, 57, 121 and 122 (which are alleged to have been in the name of Daluram and Rameshwar Lal - his grand fathers, and cultivated by his father Jwala Prasad from the beginning in the Girdawari for that year, and for correcting such entries, he (appellant) demanded Rs. 200.00 when contacted by him - to which he (decoy) pleaded not to pay or fulfil the demand of Rs. 200.00. Upon the said complaint, a trap was arranged - where first of all, the decoy was directed by the Dy. S. P. to meet him on 5th Nov., 1974 near Malsisar Hospital with the amount of gratification demanded by the accused; then the Dy. S. P. alongwith his staff proceeded in a Jeep from Jhunjhunu on 5.11.1974 and reached Malsisar hospital where found the decoy, and called for two motbir witnesses (Jagdish and Murarilal) in whose presence, the said decoy's complaint was read over and further necessary proceedings were conducted; and thereupon, the decoy produced nine Government currency notes amounting to Rs. 200.00 which were initialled by the Dy. S. P. and then after being treated with phenolphthalein powder, returned to the decoy with a direction to give them to the Patwari (accused) on his demand. After usual instructions were given to the decoy and the motbir witnesses, the trap party proceeded towards the Dharamshala where the Patwari is alleged to have been living and keeping his record. It is pertinent to mention here that the decoy was instructed to give signal by rubbing his head with hands after acceptance of the bribe money by the accused, and the motbir witnesses were instructed to remain present nearby the decoy so as to peep see and hear the talks in between the decoy and the accused. Thereafter the decoy went, while the Dy. S. P. stayed at a tea-stall, and entered into the Dharmshala alongwith Jai Singh (Head Constable) where the money is alleged to have been paid to the accused and thereafter when the accused was coming out alongwith Jai Singh and motbirs, he was intercepted by the Dy. S. P. who introduced himself and then asked him (accused) to produce currency notes said to have been taken by him from the decoy but to which he (appellant) denied. Thereafter, a search was made on the persons of the appellant and few notes of Rs. 270.00 were recovered from his pocket but, when their numbers were got compared with the tainted numbered notes it found untallied. Upon dipping the hands of the accused in sodium carbonate solution, the colour of the water turned pink. Thereafter Jai Singh (Head Constable) was directed to search room (Patwarghar) where Jai Singh is alleged to have found a shirt hanging at the spikelet, containing therein currency notes of Rs. 310.00. After usual formalities of preparing various documents were observed, the accused was arrested, and certain documents were got recovered from the Patwarghar. Twice the accused was directed to be released on bail by the Court but still he was not released on bail by the Court but still he was not released forthwith and was illegally detained for which the accused moved a contempt petition against the investigating Officer.

(3.) After usual investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted against the appellant. The prosecution in all examined ten witnesses in support of its case. The accused was examined under Sec. 313, Cr. P. C. wherein he denied the prosecution allegations and stated that there was no question of his demanding any bribe because, he had no authority in law to make corrections in the alleged entries of the revenue record; that, while he was sitting in the verandah the decoy came to enquire about some entries; and that he did not know as to how a sum of Rs. 310.00 including tainted notes reached in that shirt. The appellant further stated in his statement under Sec. 313, Crimial P.C. that the decoy and the motbirs being Members of the Pragatisheel Yuvak Sangh were prejudicial to him because they wanted to get a report submitted against the Sarpanch to which he had refuted them. Certain other circumstances have also been dispelled in the statement so as to infer that the decoy bore animosity with the accused.