PROVINCE OF BIHAR Vs. RAMESHWAR PRASAD SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) (2 August, 1944)--This is an appeal by the Provincial Government against an order of the Magistrate of the First Class of Manbhum acquitting Rameshwar Prasad Singh on charges preferred against him under Secs.161 and 384, Penal Code. Rame-swar Prasad Singh was an Assistant Price Control Officer at Jharia. In that capacity he had reported against various merchants of Jharia alleging breaches of the various regulations designed to ensure the fair distribution and sale of various commodities. The case for the prosecution is that on 81 October 1943, this officer having received a report from a chaprasi named Abdul Rauf that he had been charged ten annas instead of nine annas for a seer of ata at the shop of Nandlal Ram Kumar in Jharia bazaar went to this shop and taxed the person in charge with having, over-charged the chaprasi. The shopkeeper denied the charge and it is then said that Rame-swar threatened to arrest him and have him taken to Dhanbad bound with a rope. Rame-swar Prasad is alleged to have suggested to the shopkeeper Kishori Lal to talk the matter over with him in a nearby lane and there to have suggested to him that he should pay him Rs. 500 as a consideration for no steps being taken on the complaint of Abdul Rauf. Kishori Lal is said to have agreed to this suggestion and to have promised to meet the Assistant Price Control Officer that evening for the purpose of making the money over to him, but in fact he consulted his uncle, who came to the shop, and persuaded the Assistant Price Control Officer to agree to accept Rs. 300 instead of Rs. 500. Later in the day, Kishori Lal went home and from his home took two one-hundred rupee notes and ten notes of ten rupees each for the purpose of making them over to the Assistant Price Control Officer. Happening, however, to meet Dewan Bahadur D. D. Thakur, an Honorary Magistrate of the First Class, he told him what had happened. The Dewan Bahadur informed Kishori Lal that the Divisional Inspector of Police, Jag Narain Singh was in Jharia that day and suggested to Kishori Lal that he should go and tell this officer the story. At about 8 P. M. Kishori Lal found the Divisional Inspector at the office of the Deshbandhu Coal Co., and told him the story and showed him the notes which he had brought from his home. The Divisional Inspector initialled the two one-hundred rupee notes and one of the ten-rupee notes. Either before handing them back to Kishori LaL or later, he telephoned to the Additional Superintendent of Police telling him the story and discussing with him what steps should be taken. The Additional Superintendent of Police either approved of the step taken by the Divisional Inspector in initialling the notes or agreed that that should be done. There is a doubt on the evidence whether the Additional Superintendent of Police received this telephone message before these notes had been initialled or afterwards. This, however, does not in my opinion make any material difference to the case.

(2.) The prosecution case thereafter is that having received back the notes Kishori Lal went to the lorry-stand in Jharia bazaar, which is some few hundred yards from the shop "of Kishori Lal accompanied by one Bandhu Lal. There he was met by the accused who took him a short distance down the lane opposite the bus-stop leaving Bandhu Lal at the bus-stop. In the lane Kishori Lal is said to have handed over the two one-hundred rupee notes and the ten ten-rupee notes to the Assistant Price Control Officer. Having done this he returned to the office of the Deshbandhu Coal Co., and reported the payment to the Divisional Inspector, at the same time informing that officer that the Assistant Price Control Officer had left by bus for Dhanbad where he lives. Kishori Lal is said to have written out an account of the day's occurrences before leaving the office of the Deshbandhu Coal Co. The Divisional Inspector then proceeded to Dhanbad in the car of one Bajrang Agarwala accompanied by the senior Sub-Inspector of Jharia and an officer of the District Intelligence Bureau. At Dhanbad railway station they found that the bus in which the Assistant Price Control Officer travelled had already arrived and its occupants had dispersed. They took up the Sub-Inspector B. K. Roy of Dhanbad and proceeded towards the Dak Bungalow at Dhanbad. Approaching the Dak Bungalow they saw the Assistant Price Control Officer entering the compound of the Dak Bangalow and stopped the car. At that time Mr. Chow-dhury, the Electrical Sectional Officer, was passing on a bicycle. He was asked to accompany the police party, and guards having been posted round the Dak Bungalow, the police officers, with Bajrang <JGN>Agarwala</JGN> and Mr. Chowdhury, entered the Dak Bungalow. The Assistant Price Control Officer was found seated under an electric light talking to one Mr. Bose, a professional dancer. According to the evidence of the prosecution what happened then was that the Divisional Inspector asked the Assistant Price Control Officer whether he had any money with him and having received an answer in the affirmative asked him to pro-duce it. The Assistant Price Control Officer then produced from the inside pocket of his coat a bag or case containing some thirtyone-hundred rupee notes. He was again asked if he had any other money with hhn and then produced two four-anna pieces. The Divisional Inspector again asked him if he had any other sum with him. He at first replied in the nega- tive, but when the Inspector threatened to search him, it is said that the Assistant Price Control Officer brought out a bundle of crumpled notes from the right-hand outside pocket of his coat and that these notes consisted of the two one-hundred rupee notes and one ten-rupee note which had been initialled by the Inspector and nine other ten-rupee notes. The Inspector's initials on the three notes were-shown to the officers accompanying him and to Bajrang <JGN>Agarwala</JGN> and Mr. Chowdhury. They were initialled by Mr. Chowdhury and by Bajrang <JGN>Agarwala</JGN> . After that a seizure list was prepared. a copy of which was given to the Assistant Price Control Officer. The Inspector then telephoned to the Additional Superintendent of Police informing him of the seizure of the notes.

(3.) It will be observed that so far as the actual fact, of payment of Rs. 300 to the Assistant Price Control Officer is concerned, the direct evidence led by the prosecution consists of the testimony of Kishori Lal and Bandhu Lal. The latter cannot be regarded as a reliable witness at all and I do not propose to take into consideration his evidence with regard to the payment of the notes to the Assistant Price Control Officer; nor can Kishori Lal himself be regarded as a satisfactory witness except in so far as his testimony is corroborated. It is clear that a charge had been preferred against him and that he would therefore undoubtedly have been glad to turn the tables on the officer at whose instance he was likely to be prosecuted. His evidence therefore must be approached with the greatest caution in this case. But there is no doubt about the evidence of Dewan Bahadur D. D. Thakur that at 6 o clock that evening he was informed by Kishori Lal of the demand for the payment of illegal gratification by the Assistant PriceControl Officer as consideration for not prosecuting him. There is no suggestion and no reason for not accepting the testimony of this witness. The evidence of the Dewan Bahadur makes it clear that Kishori Lal was alleging that the Assistant Price Control Officer had demanded a bribe from him before Kishori Lal himself had come into contact with the police officers who subsequently took part in the search at the Dak Bungalow. It is important to bear that fact in mind because the defence of the accused is that his activities had roused the resentment not only of the traders of Jharia with whose illicit operations he had been interfering in his official capacity, but also the resentment of the local police officers who found that the activities of the accused were interfering with a source of illicit gain to themselves. There is no evidence in this case that Kishori Lal was in contact with any police officer up to the time when he met the Dewan Bahadur and it was the latter, who suggested to him that the story should) be told to the Divisional Inspector. The most substantial corroboration of the story of Kishori, Lal that is relied upon by the prosecution is the actual finding of the notes with the Inspector's initials on them in the pocket of the-accused at the Dak Bungalow. That part of the case is of course strenuously challenged by -the accused. His own version of what happened is thus set out in the written statement: On my return to Dhanbad I went to the Dak Bungalow and was talking to Mr. Bimalendu Bose regarding his plans for raising money for the War Fund through his performance, when suddenly Inspector J. N. Singh B. K. Roy, S. I. Bhattaeharji, Bajrang <JGN>Agarwala</JGN> , Chowdhury and Kishori entered ithe room. Without the slightest warning J. K. Singh thrust his hand in my coat pocket and brought out some currency notes and charged me with having accepted a bribe from Kishori. The manner in which J. N. Singh treated me and his attitude towards Kishori was simply astounding and I found to my bewilderment that the accused for profiteering was now an accuser against me for bribery.