LAXMI CHAND Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal against the judgment of Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur, dated 7.6.1982 convicting and sentencing this accused-appellant as under:- <FRM>JUDGEMENT_74_LAWS(RAJ)8_19891.html</FRM>

(2.) Brief facts giving rise to this case are that PW. 1 Heeralal (hereinafter referred to as "the decoy"), met Dy. S.P. Anti-corruption Department, Sawaimadhopur on 8-11-78 at 3.00 p.m in his office and orally told him that Laxmi Caind Patwari was demanding bribe of Rs. 80.00 from him. Dy. S.P. therefore, asked Heeralal to dictate a detailed report which was taken down it is Ex. P. 1. In this report Heeralal alleged that he had purchased 11/2 bighas of land known as Counia Kuwa Vali in village Naroti for a sum of Rs. 780.00 from Phailu and Gheesa sons of Sonia in samvat 2015. He did not get sale deed registered but entered the same in his Bahi. He had taken the possession and since then he was cultivating this land. His name was not entered anywhere in revenue record so he was paying the land revenue first to Phailu and Gheesa who died 6-7 years before and for some time to Gheesa's widow Mst. Chhoti. He said he had never obtained the receipt of the amount. He alleged that while he was cultivating the land last month Mst. Chhoti and her sens Ramjilal and Surgyan objected to his cultivating the land and it is lying half ploughed. He therefore, filed a suit in the court of a Magistrate. He was asked to bring the khasra khatoni of this land khasra No. 421. Therefore, for obtaining the copy of khasra girdawari he approached Laxmi Chand Patwari of Halka Naroti three times in last 5-6 days but he has refused to give the same. When it was demanded on the previous day again, the Patwari told him that he is harassing the widow and he will get him locked. Thereupon he went to the Tehsildar Tehsil Sapotara and reported the matter to him on which Tehsildar wrote an order in writing which he had handed over to the Patwari. The Patwari thereupon told him that he will charge Rs 25.00for each year. Thus for four years he will have to pay Rs. 100.00. On a bargaining he agreed to charge only Rs. 80.00. The Patwari demanded the money on the spot on which he stated that he will bring the amount next day and since he did not want to pay the bribe he has come to lodge the report. This report was read over to the decoy and was got signed. The Dy. S.P. Pw. 5, Mohan Singh, thereupon called motbirs, Suganlal, an lower division clerk in the office of A.C.T.O. Sawaimadhopur and Avinash another L.D.C. in the office of Special Auditor, Cooperative Societies, Sawaimadhopur. In their presence formality of taking down the number of currency notes and demonstration about use of pheanothaline powder was completed and memo prepared. Thereafter at 4.00 p.m. the entire trap party consisting of Dy. S.P., the decoy, two motbirs, three constables and a driver started in a Jeep for laying down the trap at the residence of Laxmi Chand Patwari Sapotara. They reached Sapotara at 8.00 p.m. hence it was not thought proper to lay the trap in the night, hence they all stayed in a primary school and deferred the laying of the trap till next morning. At 6.00 a.m. on 9-11-78 the Dy. S.P. and the trap party went towards the house of accused Laxmichand. The witnesses and the Dy. S.P. remained at a distance and the decoy entered the house of the accused. After sometime he came out followed by one more person who looked all the sides and then he went inside. Decoy told the Dy. S.P. that the accused had asked him to come after some time, the decoy against when to the house of the accused at 8.15 a.m. and thereafter he came out and gave the appoint signal on which the Dy S.P. entered the house of Laxmichand and asked h m to produce the bribe money. He denied having taken any bribe on which tee decoy Heeralal told that the money is lying in the leather bag. Handwash of the accused was taken which was found to contain sodium carbonate and phenoptheline. After completing the necessary investigation and seizing the application and other documents from the Patwari the charge-sheet was submitted against the accused who was tried by Special Judge for A.C.D. Case, Jaipur.

(3.) The learned Special Judge A.C.D. case, Jaipur framed the charges against the accused for offence under S. 161 Crimial P.C. and S. 5 (1)(d) read with S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried.