9911796707
TMI Blog1975 (10) TMI 110X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... and each of them was sentenced to suffer one year rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of ₹ 100/-, or in default of payment of fine to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one month. The appellant and Ram Narain both preferred an appeal in the High Court of Rajasthan against the order of conviction and sentence recorded against them, but the appeal substantially failed and the conviction of the appellant and Ram Narain was maintained with only a slight modification in the case of Ram Narain whose conviction was limited only to Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The sentence imposed on the appellant and Ram Narain was, however, reduced, the substantive sentence of imprisonment being brought down to three months rigorous imprisonment and the sentence of fine being limited only to ₹ 50/- in case of each of them. The appellant thereupon preferred the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court. 2. Before we deal with the contentions raised on behalf of the appellant in support of the appeal, it would be convenient to state briefly the facts giving rise to the prosecution against the appel ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e the room and after coming out stated that certified copy of the entries would be issued on the next day if a sum of ₹ 10/- were paid. Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath thereafter left the office and while they were coming out they met a person called Shyam Narain, who was known to Ram Nath. They narrated the incident in regard to the demand for bribe to Shyam Narain. Shyam Narain told them not to yield to the demand but to see him in the evening. It appears that Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath thereafter met Shyam Narain not in the evening of that day but in the morning of the next day, i.e. 31st March, 1967. Shyam Narain got an application written by Ram Nath and signed by Dhanna Lal and he asked them to go to the Deputy Superintendent, Anti Corruption Department and to present the application to him. The Deputy Superintendent thereupon arranged a raid by going through the usual procedure of having a panchnama of two curreney notes of five-rupees each which were produced, by Dhanna Lal and which were to be handed over by Dhanna Lal to Ram Narain when he demanded them.The Deputy Superintendent also arranged to secure a punch witness called Pushp Kumar. The raiding party then proceeded to the ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ote that on both the days on which the demand for bribe was made by Ram Narain, namely, 29th and 30th March, 1967, there was no direct talk between the appellant on the one hand and Dhanna Lal or Ram Nath on the other. Neither Dhanna Lal nor Ram Nath met the appellant, nor did the appellant make any demand for bribe from either of them. Even when Dhanna Lal submitted his application for certified copy to the appellant, no demand not even a suggestion for a bribe was made to him by the appellant. It was only Ram Narain, who represented to Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath that a sum of ₹ 10/- would have to be paid to the clerk incharge of the preparation of certified copy, that is the appellant, if Dhanna Lal wanted certified copy early, or else he would have to wait for ten to fifteen days. Ram Narain, according to the evidence of Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath, did go inside the room apparently for the purpose of discussing with the appelant the question of the amount of the bribe and appeard to convey to Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath that it was the appellant who was demanding the amount of the bribe, but it is quite possible that Ram Narain merely made a pretence and did not have any discussion ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e was settled at ₹ 10/- on 30th March, 1967 while according to the report made by Dhanna Lal to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, the talk about the bribe took place for the first time between Ram Narain and Dhanna Lal on 31st March, 1967 when he went to take the certified copy. This cannot be regarded as a trivial or insignificant discrepancy having no relevance to the veracity of the prosecution case. It is a significant departure made by Dhanna La and Ram Nath in their evidence and we do not think that their evidence can be regarded as reliable to trustworthy. It leaves an indelible infirmity on the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution so far as the demand for bribe made by Ram Narain is concerned. 6. The only incriminating circumstance on which reliance was placed on behalf of the prosecution for connecting the appellant with the taking of bribe by Ram Narain was that when, on 31st March, 1967 Dhanna Lal Ram Nath alongwith the raiding party went to the Land Record Office for the purpose of giving the bribe, the appellant came out of the room and on being told by Dhannalal that he had brought the monies, he asked Dhannalal to hand over the monies to take the c ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tanding behind the tamarind tree while Head Constable Uma Shanker was in the open compound. This explanation, however, cannot be accepted because in the first information report it was clearly stated by the Deputy Superintendent of Police that he together with the staff and Head Constable Uma Shanker remained standing under the English tarmarind tree . Moreover, it is inexplicable as to why the Deputy Superintendent of Police should not have sent for the appellant from his room and arrested him or at least made inquiries from him. In fact the members of the raiding party saw the appellant coming out of the room and talking to Dhanna Lal and heard him asking Dhanna Lal to hand over the monies to Ram Narain and then found him taking Dhanna Lal inside the room for the purpose of giving him the certified copy. It is also significant to note that when Ram Narain was arrested, he stated that he had taken the monies at the instance of the appellant, but even so, the Deputy Superintendent of Police did not think it fit to summon the appellant and to enquire from him because, as appearing from the recovery memo Ex, P-5, he believed that the bribe was taken by Ram Narain, not for the appell ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
