V.G.PALSHIKAR, J. - (1.) BEING aggrieved by the order of conviction dt. 13.12.1984 passed by the learned Special Judge (Anti Corruption), Udaipur in A.C.D. Case No. 3/1990 convicting the accused under Section 161 I.P.C. and Section 5(1)(D)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentencing him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment, the appellant has preferred this appeal on the grounds mentioned in the memo of appeal as also verbally canvassed before me.
(2.) WITH the assistance of the learned Counsel for the appellant and the learned Public Prosecutor for the State. I have scrutinised the record and reappreciated the evidence on record. The prosecution story as it emerges from reappreciation of the evidence is that; on 5.9.1979, Anti Corruption Department, Udaipur received a first information report from Duda Ram to the effect that when he went to the office of Nayab Tehsildar to prepare registry of agriculture land bearing Khasra No. 44 -B, accused demanded Rs. 100/ -as bribe. Since Duda Ram did not wish to give Rs. 100/ - as bribe, he moved an application to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Udaipur in this regard, thereupon Addl. Superintendent of Police gave instruction to him to meet near Hanuman -ji -ka -Mandir, village Rail -Mahudi on 6.5.1979, where they made a trap. On 6.9.1979, Duda Ram along with Rupa Ram reached to the Tehsil Office having five notes of Rs. 20/ - which were mixed with phenolphathalein powder and on demanding by accused, Duda gave them to the accused. After some time when the accused was going to down stairs, Shri Durga Lal Sharma Addl. S.P. stopped him and enquired about bribe from the accused. On completion of investigation, a challan was filed against the accused to the Court. The learned Judge on appreciation of the evidence came to the conclusion of guilt and convicted the accused as aforesaid. It is this order of conviction which is challenged in this appeal.
(3.) ON reappreciation of the evidence of the trapped witnesses, it is obvious that the accused had demanded and received a sum of Rs. 100/ - as bribe, his hands were tainted with phenolphthalein powder. 1 am in total agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Judge in relation to conviction of the accused, I concur with the same. In such circumstances, I do not feel it necessary to give detail reasons for confirming of the findings arrived at by the learned Judge. The order of conviction and sentence is, therefore, liable to be maintained.;