- (1.) H. C. Mittal, J. Panch Lal has preferred this appeal against his convic tion and sentence under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to one year and three years R. I. respectively as well as a fine of 1000 and in default six months R. I.
(2.) THE prosecution case in brief is that the appellant Panch Lal was posted as Marketing Inspector at Jahanabad district Fatehpur and in exercise of his duties he used to check various trucks of foodgrains which used to pass. It is alleged that the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta (PW 4) used to carry food grains in his truck No. USF 5575 to Kanpur, that the appellant used to demand bribe at the rate of 50 paise for each bag of foodgrains and that on a truck about 100 bags were carried and the appellant made a demand of Rs. 50 per truck which the complainant refused to pay and thereupon the appellant had not permitted the truck No. UPG 2094 belonging to another person us be had not paid the bribe to the appellant; that the appellant hid demanded from him Rs. 800 regarding the trucks which he had earlier per mitted and Rs. 50 for 100 bags which he intended to carry to Kanpur; that the appellant had asked him to pay Rs. 850 on 17-2-1979 to be paid by the evening of 21-2-J979. THEreupon the complainant reported the matter to S. P. Vigilance through complaint (Ex. ka 1) whereon PW 1 J. Sri N. Sharma, Deputy S. P. (Vigilance) was directed by the S. P. to lay a trap. PW 1 Sri J. N. Sharma then talked to the complainant and prepared a plan according to which on 21-2-1979 he collected S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, PW 5 Sri Dhar Awasthi and police constables Rajendra Prasad Tewari and Ram Baran Singh and reached Ghatampur Chauraha. THEre along with Ram Tirath Singh and witness Maheshi Daen, the complainant went to the roam of Panch Lal appellant at about 7. 15 p. m. to offer the bribe. Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma had already noted the number of the currency notes, had applied phanolphthalein powder to them and also obtained the solution of sodium carbonate. It is alleged that in the presence of S. I. Tirath Singh, police constables and other witnesses the currency notes were offered to the appellant Panch Lil by the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta. THEreupon the appellant asked Ram Kishun to handover the money to his Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla who was sitting there. Ram Kumar Shukla was handed over the currency notes and imme diately thereafter on getting hint Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma entered to room and arrested the appellant and Ram Kumar Shukla and recovered currency notes from the pocket of the Pajama of Ram Kumar Shukla. THE hands of Rim Kumar Shukla and the pocket of his Pajama were dipped in the solution of the sodium carbonate which became pine in colour and it was sealed in different phials. THE currency notes were also sealed and recovery memo was also prepared by Deputy S. P. Sri Sharma. THE appellant with Ram Kumar Shukla were taken to the police station. FIR was lodged at P. S. Jahanabad at 11. 50 p. m. After investigation chargesheet was submitted and the appel lant was tried, alongwith Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla. To prove its case the prosecution examined in all pine witnesses. PW 1 Sri J. N. Sharma was the Deputy S. P. (Vigilance) who had laid the trap and had arrested the appellant. PW 2 Sri Ram Ratan Ram was Regional Food Controller, Allahabad and had given sanction for prosecution of Ram Kumar Chaukidar. PW 3 Head Constable Afsar Hussain was pasted as Constable Clerk at P. S. Jahanabad on 21- 2-79, had registered the case on rceipt of FIR from Deputy S. P. Sri J. N. Sharma and had kept the sealed bundles of case in the Mai Khana. PW 4 Ram Kishun Gupta, the com plainant had offered Rs. 850 as bribe to the appellant PW 5 S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, PW 7 Bora a public witness have corroborated the testimony of Ram Kishun and Deputy S. P. Sri J. N. Sharma regarding taking of bribe and apprehension of the appellant. PW 7 Ram Narain Singh and PW 8 Om Prakash Shukla are the Investigating Officer of the case. PW 9 Hirdaya Ram Verma was Senior Assistant in the Office of the Food Commissioner, Lucknow and he proved the sanction to prosecute the appellant given by Shri Manohar Subramaniam, I. A. S. Food Commissioner Lucknow. The version of the appellant was that he has been falsely implicated ; that Sri Laxmi Narain Gupta real brother of the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta had one huller machine and the appellant as Marketing Inspector had checked it on 2-9-1978 and submitted a report to the R. F. C. , Kanpur on 6-9-78. Thereupon Laxmi Narain Gupta was fined Rs. 100. Rs. 100 were further got deposited in the bank ; that on that account the complainant being brother of Laxmi Narain Gupta got him falsely impli cated in the case. He further stated that S. I. Ram Tirath had falsely implicated his relation Sri R. G. Bharti in a case in the year 1976-77. He knew Sri Ram Tirath Singh from before and had also an altercation with him and, therefore, he had given false evidence against him, that when he already know S. I. Ram Tirath Singh, there could be no question of accepting any bribe in his presence, that public witness Bora was a pocket witness of the police. In defence the appellant, however, did not adduce any evidence.
(3.) THE learned special Judge, however, believed the prosecution evidence, hence convicted and sentenced the appellant. He has, however, acquitted Chaukidar Ram Kumar Shukla on the ground that the sanction to prosecute him was not strictly in accordance with law. Hence it was not a proper sanction and that according to the prosecution evidence itself he had not demanded any bribe. THE Government has not preferred any appeal against the acquittal, of Chaukidar R, K. Shukla. On being aggrieved Panch Lal has preferred this appeal. On behalf of the appellant it was urged that besides the fact that the prosecution evidence was not worthy of credance, it was apparent that the complainant Ram Kishun had an axe to grind with the appellant. It is admitted that Laxmi Narain Gupta is the real elder brother of the complainant Ram Kishun Gupta. In his cross-examination Ram Kishun has further admitted that he, Laxmi Narain and his elder brother Sri Ram all lived jointly and carried on joint business. He also admitted that prior to the occurrence Laxmi Narain had a huller machine. He, however, expressed his ignorance that in September, 1987 the appellant had submitted a repport against his brother Laxmi Narain whereon R. F. C. Kanpur had sentenced Laxmi Narain to pay a fine of Rs. 130. He, however, further admitted that besides Panch Lal appellant then another person was Marketing Inspector in Jahanabad area. On the record there is paper No. 97a-1 a certified copy of the report by the Senior Marketing Inspector to R. F. C. Kanpur against M/s Laxmi Narain having Omar Huller licence No. 75 regarding his factory.;