MAHABIR PARSHAD Vs. STATE
LAWS(P&H)-1950-12-6
HIGH COURT OF PUNJAB AND HARYANA
Decided on December 08,1950

MAHABIR PARSHAD Appellant
VERSUS
STATE Respondents

JUDGEMENT

- (1.) THE petnr. who was employed as a clerk in the office of the Dy. Commr. at Delhi, has been convicted Under Section 161, I. P. C. read with Section 5 (ii) Prevention of Corruption Act and been sentenced to three months' R. I. The learned Addl. Ses. J. upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence to a fine of Rs. 300 as the petnr. was bound to lose his service as well as his pension as a result of the conviction. The petnr. is dissatisfied with the order of the Cts. below and has come to this Ct. in revn.
(2.) THE facts of the case are fairly simple. One Kishan Lal, who is a refugee from the West punjab, was the holder of two licenses, namely, a license to practise as a deed-writer and a license to sell entertainment stamps. On 7-6-1949 he received a letter from the office of the Collector, delhi, in which he was asked to produce his deed Registers in the office of the Collector, The complainant took his registers to the petnr. as the latter was dealing with issue of licenses. The petnr. calculated the income of the complainant for the preceding five or six months and directed him to produce the registers concerning the sale of entertainment stamps. The petnr. told him that he could not retain both the licenses at the same time and would have to give up either the license to practise as a deed-writer or the license for the sale of entertainment stamps. The complainant pleaded that he had lost every thing in Pakistan and should be allowed to retain both the licenses with him, but the petnr. told him that that was impossible unless he made it worth the while of the petnr. by paying a sum of Rs. 100 to him. The complainant was reluctant to comply with this illegal demand. Two or three days later the complainant paid another visit to the office of the Dy. Comr. with the object of showing the register concerning the sales of entertainment stamps. The petnr. asked him to write down all the accounts. The complainant again begged of him to let him retain both the licenses and the petnr. repeated his proposal. Shortly afterwards the complainant received a letter from the office of the Dy. Comr. asking him to inform the Collector within a period of one week from the date of the receipt of the letter as to which of the two licensees he wanted to retain. The complainant was worried at the prospect of having to surrender one of his licenses and thereby losing some of his income and he accordingly paid yet another visit to the office of the Dy. Comr. He repeated his request to the petnr. but the petnr. expressed his inability to give any help in the matter unless his demand for the payment of rs. 100 was complied with. The complainant was unable or unwilling to make the payment and returned home. Thereafter every time that the complainant went to purchase stamps the petnr. made it quite clear that it would be to the advantage of the complainant to part with some cash. One day the complainant agreed in desperation to pay a sum of Rs. 100 to the petnr. but on reconsideration he decided to bring the offender to book.
(3.) ON the following day, he went to the house of L. Uttam Singh Honorary Mag. and told him the whole story. The Honorary Mag. advised the complainant to write out an appln. setting out the circumstances in which the demand was made. The complainant complied with the suggestion. On the following day the Honorary Mag. took the complainant to the Ct. of Mr. Bhanot a Mag. of the 1st class, so that a trap should be set for the apprehension of the petnr. The complainant; produced a hundred rupee currency note. Mr. Bhanot took down its number and returned it to the complainant with the direction that the latter should go and present the note to the petnr. and that after that was done to signal the fact to Mr. Bhanot by touching his head with his hand. On 15-11-1949 the complainant proceeded to the room of the petnr. followed by Mr. Bhanob, L. Uttam Singh and one Dewan Ram Chand a prosecuting Sub-Inspector of Delhi. L. Uttam Singh went and stood near the office of the Supt. of the Dy. Comr. Mr. Bhanot went and stood near the nazarat office and the Prosecuting Sub-Inspector stationed himself under a tree from which he could watch the movement of the complainant.;


Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.