BIJAILAL Vs. STATE

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS is an appeal by Bijailal against the judgment of the Additional Sessions Judge. Jaipur, dated the 30th October, 1953 convicting the appellant under sec. 161 I. P. C. and sentencing him to two months' simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 50/ -.

(2.) THE brief facts of the case are that one Tejaram deposited a sum of Rs. 1032/3/- in the Government Treasury as the price for a lease of two villages. Somehow or other the lease could not be accomplished and the property was not delivered to Tejaram by the Government. He, therefore, applied for a refund of this amount. On his application of the 19th of February, 1953 the Collector, Bharatpur, wrote to the Commissioner for according sanction for refund. This letter of the Collector was received in the office of the Commissioner on the 11th of March, 1953. Bijailal who is the accused in this case was Reader to the Commissioner and this paper came to him on the same date, for placing it before the Commissioner. Tejaram met him as his papers had gone to him and requested him for quick disposal of the case. Bijailal asked him to see him the next day. On the next day when Tejaram again met him he pointed out certain defects in the papers that the Accountant General's remarks were not there and that no reference regarding Bank Account in which the money had been deposited appeared from the papers. He, however, demanded some money for disposal of the papers. Tejaram flatly refused to pay anything. THE next day he again approached him and Bijailal said that as he could not find any money for him the papers were lying with him. He then asked for an amount of Rs. 5/- only and Tejaram then came out promising him to pay that amount. Tejaram went to the Anti-Corruption Department's Office and he moved a petition stating these facts along with a five-rupee note which was duly initialled by Mr. Banerjee and was returned to him for giving it to the accused. Mr. L. N. Sharma, Deputy Superintendent, Anti-Corruption Department, also accompanied him. Tejaram went in the Commissioner's Office while Mr. L. N. Sharma kept outside it. After a while it is said the accused came out of the office at about 1-30 P. M. and Tejaram also followed him. While both of them were proceeding towards Ajmeri Gate from the Commissioner's Office near about the traffic constable's post. Tejaram gave that five-rupee note to the accused Bijailal while Mr. L. N. Sharma was looking at them. Soon after this Mr. L. N. Sharma approached the accused and took his search and recovered the five rupee note in the presence of two witnesses Abdul Rahman and Ismail. A case was registered against the accused Bijailal and he was challaned under sec. 161 I. P. C. before the Additional Sessions Judge.

(3.) IN Hazura Singh vs. Emperor (1) certain observations have been made about the value of the evidence of a spy. It has been observed that such evidence is looked upon with suspicion and should be seldom relied upon in support of a conviction. It may be noted that these are general observations relating to the value of the evidence of spies. This case was not of an offence under sec. 161 I. P. C. and these observations do not directly refer to the case of a spy in a case of bribery.