SHAMSOODEEN Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 14.5.82 passed by the learned Special Judge, Anti Corruption Cases, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to undergo 3 months R.l. and to pay a fine of Rs. 50, in default of payment, to further undergo one months S.I.

(2.) The prosecution case is that on 10.1.1979 P.W. 2 Magraj submitted a written complaint before the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption, Pali stating that about 15 days back he had taken a water meter under the Domestic Distribution Plan. He had deposited Rs. 70.00 but he did not obtain, any receipt. On 10th Jan., 1979 at about 9.30 a.m., accused Shamsoodeen served a notice Ex.P/8, whereby he was informed that he was utilising the water for the construction purpose and, therefore, he was asked to get water meter on the line, otherwise, he will be charged @ 3% of the cost for construction of the building, or the water connection shall be disconnected. At the time of serving the notice, the accused told him that if he wants to get notice get discharged, he will required to pay a sum of Rs. 100.00. The complainant said that he will make the payment in the evening. As he Was not interested in paying the bribe therefore, he reported the matter to the Anti Corruption Department. The Department registered a case and laid trap. P.W. 1 Hemraj and P.W. 2 Sumer Singh were called. A sum of Rs. 100.00 were taken from the complainant and a Panchnama was prepared, in which number of the tainted notes were noted and powder of phenol-pathelin was applied. After usual procedure, the complainant was given Rs. 100.00. It is alleged that the said tainted currency notes of Rs. 100.00were paid by the complainant to the accused Shamsoodeen. On receiving the signal, the Police party reached on the spot and after disclosing the identity, recovered the tainted currency notes from the possession of Gajaram instead of Shamshoodeen. Police completed the usual formalities. After usual investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the accused for the aforesaid offences.

(3.) The appellant was charged of offence under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and of offence under Sec. 5(2) read with Sec. 5(1 )(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The accused denied the guilt and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of case examined 11 witnesses. The accused in his statement under Sec. 313 Crimial P.C. stated that the Rs. 100.00 were paid to him by the complainant for purpose of purchasing the water meter from Pali. The accused examined P.W. 1 K.D. Sharma as defence witness. On analysing the evidence, the trial court held that the accused appellant received Rs. 100.00 from the complainant as illegal gratification on behalf of J.En. Shri K.D. Sharma DW 1. In view of this, the accused was convicted of the aforesaid offence and sentenced accordingly.