JAGANNADHADAS, J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal by the State against the acquittal of one Sadhu Charan Panigrahi, who was charged under Section 161/116, Penal Code, At the trial he was convicted by the Sub -Divisional Magistrate and sentenced to undergo Rule 1. for four months and to pay a fine of Rs. 50. On appeal, the learned Sessions Judge acquitted him and hence this appeal.
(2.) THE case against the respondent is as follows: He was the authorised agent of the wife of one of the younger brothers of the Raja of Dhenkanal. On her behalf, he presented a sale -deed, Ex. I, for registration on 18 -6 -1949 to the Sub -Registrar, Dhenkanal. That remained without being registered until 2 -7 -1949 for one reason or other to be stated presently. It is said that on the morning of 2 -7 -1949, the respondent' went to the house of the Sub Registrar, had some general gossip with him, and at a time when he found him alone, offered some currency notes to him which he refused. It is said that thereafter the respondent left the currency notes of the value of Rs. 25 on the trunk of the Sub -Registrar and went away without paying any heed to the call of the Sub. Registrar not to leave the money there, but to take it back. The prosecution case is that this amounted to the abetment of offence of bribery under Section 161/116. The accused totally denied the offering of the money or the leaving of it on: the trunk of the Sub -Registrar and stated that this case was foisted on him, because the Sub -Registrar was not giving a receipt for the document, Ex. I presented to him for registration, for which he was repeatedly insisting. Both the lower Courts have accepted it as a fact that on the morning of 2 -7 -194.9, the respondent did offer money to the Sub -Registrar at his house, In order to substantiate that there were circumstances which rendered the offer of the money an offence, the Sub -Registrar P, w. 1 gave evidence to the following effect. There was at the time a confidential circular from the Government, that Khaja lands of the relatives of the ruler are non -transferable and that when any transfer, deed is presented on behalf of any such person, it has to be carefully scrutinised whether it relates to any such non -transferable lands and that all such cases are to be submitted to the Collector for orders. P. W. 1 had some reason be think that the lands covered by the sale deed Ex. I presented for registration, were Khanja lands. He therefore took the sale deed to the Additional District Magistrate of the place. The Additional District Magistrate told him that the matter would be decided by the District Magistrate who was not at the moment available and P. W. 1 accordingly left it with the Additional District Magistratewho was to place the matter before the District Magistrate and convey his orders.
(3.) THE trial Court thought that in these circumstcances the motive of the respondent inoffering the money was obviously in connection with the registration of Ex. I, and that thereforehe respondent was guilty of the offence charged. The appellate Court, however, held that since according to the evidence of the Sub -Registrar, he had at the time left the document with the Additional District Magistrate for the orders of the District Magistrate and was simply awaiting his orders and had himself no official function todischarge, in connection with the registration, at the time, when the money was offered, the offercannot amount to the offer of a bribe to a publicservant under Section 161, Penal Code. For this view the learned Sessions Judge relied on certain cases, namely, Chanan Singh v. Emperor, A.I.R. (8) 1921 oal. 344 and Venkatarama Naidu In re, A.I.R. (16) 1929 Mad. 756. These cases take the viewthat when money is off - - -red to a public servant fordoing an official act, at a time when he is functus officio in respect of the matter concerned, the person so offering is not guilty of an offence under Section 161/116. The learned Sessions Judge notices that this view is opposed to the view taken in certain other cases, namely, those in Emperor v. Bhagwan Das Kanji, 81 Bom. 335, Ajudhia Prasad v. Emperor, 51 ALL. 467, Emperor v. Phul Singh, A.I.R. (28) 1941 Lah. 276, Gopeshwar v. Emperor, A. I. R. (35) 1948 Nag. 82 and Bam Swarup v. The Crown, A. I. R.(86) 1949 Ajmer 12, but prefers to follow the two oases from Calcutta and Madras above mentioned. The learned Advocate -General appearing for the State contests thecorrectness of this view.;