S.S.Dewan, J. - (1.) THE respondent Sarup Singh, who was patwari, was brought to trial for the offences under section 5(2) of the prevention of Corruption Act (hereinafter referred to as the Act) and under section 161, Indian Penal Code. The Special Judge, Patiala, acquitted the respondent of the charges by his order dated April 23, 1976 which is under challenge in this Court.
(2.) IT is alleged that Ujaggar Singh complainant (P.W. 4) was to sell his land situate in village Becharg Rasoolpur to Teja Singh for Rs. 6,000/ - as the same was under mortgage and for that purpose he wanted to have a copy of jamabandi for the land. He along with Teja Singh contacted Sarup Singh Patwari (accused in the case) for having a copy of jamabandi and the respondent demanded bribe of Rs. 25/ - for supplying him the copy. The complainant contacted the respondent a few days later and he again demanded the bribe. The complainant made a false promise to pay the amount to the respondent on the next day i.e. 8th July, 1975. The complainant accompanied by Teja Singh approached Shri Bhajan Singh, Vigilance Inspector, Patiala, and informed him that the respondent was demanding a bribe of Rs. 25/ - from him. He recorded his statement Exhibit P.A. and sent the same to the Police Station, Bassi Pathanan for registration of the case against the respondent He drew up a memo Exhibit P.D. pertaining to the handing over of two currency notes of Rs. 10/ each and one currency note of Rs 5/ - (Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3) after applying phenolphthalein powder to Ujaggar Singh giving the numbers and the particulars of the said notes in the memo. The Vigilance Inspector joined Jawala Singh from village Bahadurgarh. According to the trap devised, it was settled that the three currency notes Exhibits P. 1 to P. 3 would be delivered by Ujaggar Singh to the respondent. Teja Singh would accompany him as a shadow witness Teja Singh was to give a signal to the police party when the treated currency notes were passed on to the respondent. Ujaggar Singh accompanied by Teja Singh contacted the respondent to have the copy of the jamabandi for which the latter demanded bribe. The complainant threw the three currency notes of Rs. 25/ - on the cot from where the respondent picked them up and put them in the right side outer pocket of his shirt. Teja Singh slipped away and gave the prearranged signal. The Vigilance Inspector accompanied by Jawala Singh rushed to the spot and offered his search and thereafter the Inspector searched the person of the respondent and recovered currency notes worth Rs. 36/ - and a change of Rs. 1.65 paise which included the tainted money from the right side outer pocket of the shin Exhibit P. 5. The hands and the shirt were dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate and the same turned pink. The necessary memos were prepared in that respect. The register of the jamabandi and the copy of the jamabandi Exhibit P.G. prepared by the respondent and also the roznamcha were taken into possession. The Inspector obtained sanction for the prosecution of the respondent. After the completion of the investigation, the respondent was challaned. In his statement under section 813 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the respondent admitted that he was working as a Patwari incharge of Talania Circle but denied the other allegations. He pleaded that on the alleged day of occurrence, he was present In the Patwarkhana where Dalip Sain and Hari Singh were also present and that at about 1 P.M., Ujaggar Singh came to him for getting his land demarcated for which the respondent replied that the same could be done only through an application made to the Tehsildar. There was altercation between him (respondent) and Ujaggar Singh and in the meanwhile Vigilance Inspector Bhajan Singh came to the spot and took him to the police station The respondent examined no witness in defence but tendered certified copies of judgments wherein some adverse observations were made against the Vigilance Inspector Bhajan Singh.
(3.) THE trial Court on the basis of the material placed before it returned a judgment of acquittal and hence this appeal by the State.;