JOR SINGH Vs. STATE OF RAJASTHAN

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 20.7.82 passed by the special Judge, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Sec. 161 IPC.and Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act sentencing him to one years R.I. and to pay a fine of Rs. 500.00 on each count and in default of payment to further undergo 1 months S.I. Both the sentences have been ordered to run concurrently.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 16.2.76 PW/7 Hanuman Singh submitted a written report bearing thumb mark of PW/1 Bega Ram before the Superintendent of Police A.C.D. Jaipur. It is alleged in the report that on the death at informants father the Khatedari rights of agricultural land was required to be transferred in his name alongwith his brothers. Thus, he submitted an application for mutation. The Patwari of the said area demanded Rs. 200.00 as bribe for the said purpose. He paid sum of Rs. 100.00 and, therefore, Patwari started necessary proceedings on the application. He promised to pay rest of the amount of Rs. 100.00 through Kishna Ram. He also stated that he was not interested in giving the bribe to the Patwari. The Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Jaipur send this report to the Addl. Superintendent of Police, A.C.D. Jodhpur for taking necessary action. The report was received by Rameshwar Lal, Addl. Superintendent of Police, A.C.D., Jodhpur for taking necessary action. The report was received by Rameshwar Lal, Addl. Superintendent of Police A.C.D., Jodhpur on 20.2.76. He stated that because of poverty the complainant PW/1 Bega Ram himself had not come. On this report the Addl. Superintendent of Police. A.C.D., Jodhpur proceeded to village Lalawas on 21.2.76. On 22.2.76 a trap was arranged. It is alleged that as per the plan Bega Ram paid Rs. 100.00 to the accused. As usual on receiving signal Addl. S.R reached on the spot and recovered the tainted currency notes and completed the spot proceedings. After usual investigation. Police laid chargesheet against the accused appellant of offence under Sec. 161 IPC. and Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(3.) The accused denied the charge a.id claimed trial. The prosecution examined 11 witnesses and exhibited 12 documents. The accused appellant in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. denied the prosecution case and pleaded that he has been falsely implicated by Hanuman Singh. He stated that recovery proceedings of the outstanding dues were pending with him against Hanuman Singh. Said Hanuman Singh sent Rs. 100.00 through Daula Ram to be deposited against the outstanding amount of Rs. 216.34. The receipt of Rs. 100.00 was passed on the same day and after some time Hanuman Singh deposited the rest of the amount with the appellant vide Ex.D/13. The trial court did not accept the version of the accused and found the prosecution case proved. He accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as stated above.