EMPEROR Vs. CHAUBE DINKAR RAO

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This is an appeal by the Local Government against the acquittal of Chaube Dinkar Rao, Pundit Jagat Narain and Pundit Madan Mohan who were charged with an offence under Section 161 read with 116, I.P.C. The principal facts of this case are undisputed. Mr. Brij Behari Lal was the Subordinate Judge of Etawah in the Mainpuri judgeship. We shall call him hereinafter "the Judge." There was a suit in his Court between Narain Rao, the father of Dinkar Rao, accused, and a man named Gur Narain. The Judge had recorded all the evidence and heard the arguments and was preparing his judgment when Pundit Jagat Narain accused came to his house, on 4 July 1931, and told him that the plaintiff Narain Rao would be prepared to give him Rs. 10,000 if he would decree the suit. The Judge felt insulted and turned Jagat Narain out of the house. The same evening the Judge met the Collector, Mr. Barlow, and told him about the suggested bribe of Rupees 10,000. Next day Mr. Mathur, the Sessions Judge came to Etawah to hold Sessions and the Judge told him also about the offer of a bribe. That afternoon the Judge, Mr. Barlow and Mr. Mathur met at the Collector's house and talked about the incident. Mr. Barlow remarked that the plaintiff Narain Rao was a defaulter to the extent of about Rs. 10,000 in the payment of land revenue and had declared his inability to pay, but he was nevertheless prepared to pay Rs. 10,000 as a bribe. He suggested to the Judge that if the plaintiff or his representative wanted to offer the money as a bribe the Judge would not stop him but should take the money so that it might be applied in discharge of the plaintiff's arrears of land revenue. The three officials seemed to think it would be rather a joke to let the plaintiff offer the money as a bribe and then take it in payment of the land revenue which the plaintiff professed to be unable to pay.

(2.) Pundit Jagat Narain never appeared on the scene again, but a few days later Madan Mohan accused, who is a pujari and who was a witness of the plaintiff in the suit, came to see the Judge at his house. After some preliminary remarks the Judge told him that Pundit Jagat Narain had approached him with the offer of a bribe on behalf of the plaintiff Narain Rao. Madan Mohan said that Jagat Narain had no connexion with the plaintiff and had probably been sent by the defendant in order to prejudice the plaintiff. The Judge then signified by his manner that he was willing to consider the question of taking a bribe. Madan Mohan then said that the plaintiff could not pay so much as Rs. 10,000 but would be willing to pay about Rupees 8,000. The Judge held out for Rupees 12,000 and said that he was prepared to see the plaintiff if the latter was willing to pay that sum.

(3.) Two or three days later Madan Mohan came again and said that the plaintiff was prepared to pay Rs. 12,000 and asked when he should bring it. The Judge was anxious that the money should be paid in the presence of Mr. Mathur, who was returning to Etawah in a few days, and so he put Madan Mohan off once or twice and finally arranged that the money should be paid him at his house on 12 July at about 9.30 p. m., as Mr. Mathur was expected to arrive at Etawah on that day. The Judge then arranged with Mr. Barlow and Mr. Mathur that the bribe-givers should be trapped when they came to pay the money. The Judge sat in the verandah of his house while Mr. Barlow, Mr. Mathur and the Tahsildar hid themselves inside the rooms. At about 9.30 p.m., on 12 July, Dinkar Rao, the plaintiff's son, came along with Ma-dan Mohan and said that they had brought Rs. 10,000 and promised to pay the balance of Rs. 2,000 within two days. Dinkar produced Rs. 10,000 in currency notes which he handed over to the Judge who counted them and put them in his pocket. He then lighted a cigarette, which was a pre-arranged signal to Mr. Barlow, Mr. Mathur and the Tahsildar, who thereupon came out from his house. The Judge continued to play his part and pretended to be very much upset at the arrival of these gentlemen. When the Collector asked Dinkar Rao what he meant by paying this money to the Judge, he replied after some hesitation that he had paid it by way of a loan. The Judge however said that the money had been brought as a bribe and it was no use trying to conceal the truth, so Dinkar Rao threw himself at the Collector's feet and asked for pardon. The Collector then said that he wanted the money for land revenue due from Narain Rao, and got Dinkar Rao to give his consent in writing that the money should be taken on account of revenue and irrigation dues on behalf of his father Narain Deo. The Collector then made over the notes to the Tahsildar. Mr. Mathur reported the facts to the High Court and the Collector also made a report to the Commissioner. The result was that the accused were put on their trial along with Narain Rao, but were all acquitted by the learned Sessions Judge. No appeal has been filed against the acquittal of Narain Rao, so we are only concerned with the other three accused.