- (1.) K. D. Shahi, J. Both these revisions have been filed against the order dated 13th May, 1998 passed by Sri S. K. Pandey, Special Judge, Ami Corruption (Central) U. P. Lucknow in Criminal Case No. 39 of 1996 State v. Udai Narain and another dis missing the application of the revisionists for discharge under Section 239, Cr. P. C.
(2.) SINCE both the revision arise out of one order dated 13th May, 1998 in Case No. 39 of 1998 and in both the cases com mon questions of law and facts are in volved, both these cases have been taken together for disposal. Learned counsel for the parties have been heard at length at the admission stage itself. The charge-sheet filed against both the revisionists is under Sections 8,10,13, (2) read with Section 13 (1) (d) of Preven tion of Corruption Act, 1988. Section 120- E is not an independent offence. This sec tion is not to be read in isolation. It is to be read in relation to the main offence. Under the Scheme of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 a person who gives bribe is not an accused. Only the person who agrees to accept or attempts to obtain bribe is an accused. In this particular case, in one word, the case of the prosecution is that the revisionist Abdul Aziz Reshamwala (here-in-after called 'reshamwala') gave a sum of Rs. 2,00,000/- (two lacs) to Udai Narain accused to get favour in a seizure case for the release of a sum of Rs. 21. 23. 050/- by Jaipur Custom Authority pending before Sri K. P. Singh, the then Collector, Custom and Central Excise at Jaipur. The scheme of the Act shows that under Sections 7, 10, 11, 12 and 13 only public servants are to be punished. Reshamwala is not at all a public servant. Under Section 8 a person who takes gratification in order to influence public servant is guilty. Reshamwala has not taken any gratification. He is said to have given gratification. Therefore, not only on facts but even on imagination no case is made out against Reshamwala. I have not to decide whether any other offence on earth is made out against Reshamwala or not. His application of discharge was fit to be allowed only on this ground that he is not a public servant and he has not taken any gratification or bribe.
(3.) NOW the case remains against Udai Narain for which brief facts of the case are to be given. A sum of Rs. 21. 23. 050/- was seized from Reshamwala by the Custom Authorities of Jaipur where the matter was pending before Sri K. P. Singh, the then Collector, Customs and Central Excise, Jaipur. Udai Narain was posted as Addi tional Collector, Custom and Central Ex cise at Lucknow during the period of al leged trap. It is said that on 8-11-1993 at 4. 30 p. m. plane of Indian Airlines landed at Lucknow Airport. Earlier an informa tion was received by Sri N. P. Tewari, Dy. S. P. that an illegal deal was to be made between Reshamwala and Udai Narain. N. P. Tiwari made an entry in the G. D. at Sr. No. 10 dated 8-11-1993. The substance of the information 'illegal deal' has not been recorded in the copy of the G. D. However, on this information, that Reshamwala is to land from Flight No. 1c 695 and Udai Narain was to receive him, N. P. Tewari arranged a trap. Udai Narain was there with his Fiat Car and also white Ambas sador Car of the department. Reshamwala came out from the Aircraft. Udain Narain received him in the lobby. They wished each other and Udain Narain said "hello Mr. Aziz Bhai, how are you". On this Aziz replied that he was so but under tension owing to Jaipur matter. Reshamwala was carrying a Briefcase with him. He enquired from Udai Narain where and how to proceed as he had got a return journey ticket booked for 9-11-1993. Reshamwala also said that he wanted to explain every thing to him (Udai Narain ). Udai Narain told that he had brought his personal Car in which he would take him to his place. The two other officials, accompanying Udai Narain, were asked to go in Ambas sador Car. Udai Narain and Reshamwala seated themselves in the back seat of the Fiat Car. Briefcase of Reshamwala carry ing currency notes remained with Resham wala himself. At this stage, N. P. Tewari decided to intercept the Fiat Car. There was rush at the Airport. Therefore, the trap party proceeded a few yards away and stopped the vehicle. Reshamwala produced his visiting-card. The brief-case was with Reshamwaia. He was then asked to open his brief-case and in the brief-case a file and bundle was found. The bundle was of the. currency notes and both the accused persons were taken into custody. The currency notes were signed by the Trap Officer. Reshamwala told that he has taken this money for the purchase of a Car with the help of Udai Narain. Then, on further queries, it revealed that he had brought this amount of rupees two lacs to make payment to Udai Narain as demanded by him for which he was in touch with Udai Narain for last about six months. Udai Narain had allegedly telephoned him about a week's age at his residence to come at Lucknow with the case-papers and rupees two lacs so that the matter of Jaipur case could be settled. There is nothing on record to show that what was the earlier dealing between the parties and what was earlier settled between the parties. Parties means 'reshamwala and Udai Narain. There is neither anything on record to show that any witness has heard any statement that K. P. Singh has agreed to take a sum of rupees two lacs through Udai Narain to do favour to Reshamwala nor is there any thing on record to show that Udai Narain had assured that if he is given a sum of rupees two lacs he will get the matter set tled. The entire evidence rests on the statement of Reshamwala but, to his good luck, the prosecuting agency has made Resham wala an accused in the case and not a witness. Confession of an accused to the police authorities is not at all admissible in evidence. That is not to be read and that is only to be unknown away. Confession to a police officer is meaningless.;