- (1.) The appellant, Mahendra Kumar Kuashik ('A-1', for short), having been convicted for the offences under Section 7, 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act ('the Act', for short), having been convicted for the offence under Section 12 of the Act, vide judgment dated 31.09.2003, passed by Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Act, Jaipur, have approached this Court. Since both the appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment, they are being decided by this common judgment. The brief facts of the case are that on 23.02.1998, around 11:45 AM, Sunda Ram (P.W. 17) submitted a written report (Ex. P. 8) before the ACB, wherein he claimed that he has certain lands situated in village Sirohi in respect of which a litigation is pending before the Sub Divisional Magistrate, Neem-ka-Thana. He further claimed that he needs to submit certain revenue records, which are in custody of the Halka Girdawar, A-1. In order to procure the copies of these revenue records, he had contacted A-1. However, A-1 has been delaying in giving copies of the documents to him. Moreover, he has been demanding Rs. 2,000/- for giving copies of the record. The complainant further alleged that on 15.02.1998, he had met A-1 and had shown his inability to pay Rs. 2,000/-. For, the amount was too much for him, as he was a mere labourer. As Sunda Ram (P.W. 17) was unable to make the payment of illegal gratification, he contacted the Bureau. On 23.02.1998, Mota Ram, LHC was given a mini-tape recorder and was sent to the house of A-1 with Sunda Ram (P.W. 17) in order to record the conversation. According to the prosecution, A-1 again demanded the money, whereupon the complainant gave him Rs. 500/-. A-1 indicated to the complainant that he should give the money to Sudama, (A-2). He also told the complainant to bring the remaining amount of Rs. 1500/- on the next day. Thereafter, the trap proceedings were carried on 24.02.1996. According to the prosecution, the complainant went to A-1's office. There, he was asked to pay Rs. 50/- by way of fees for getting the certified copies of the of the documents. He took out Rs. 50/-, out of the money given by the ACB, and gave it to A-1, who gave it to Patwari Kana Ram Sharma (P.W. 6). According to the prosecution, thereafter, A-1 took the complainant to the veranda and at the veranda, the complainant gave the remaining amount of Rs. 1450/- to him. Subsequently, the complainant gave the agreed signal. Thereupon, the ACB team came in and caught hold of A-1. At the time, A-1 told the trap party that "he had neither demanded, nor accepted any bribe money from the complainant." According to the prosecution, Rs. 1450/- were recovered from the windowsill of the toilet and Rs. 50/-were recovered from the windowsill of a room. Subsequently, the chargesheet was filed against both the appellants.
(2.) In order to support its case, the prosecution examined seventeen witnesses, and submitted a number of documents. The defence also examined two witnesses, and submitted a few documents. After going through the oral and documentary evidence, the learned Judge convicted A-1 for offence under Section 7 of the Act, and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs. 5,000/-, and directed him to further undergo a term of six months of simple imprisonment in default thereof. The learned Judge also convicted him for offences under Section 13(1)(d) read with Section 13(2) of the Act and sentenced him to two years of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed him with a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and further directed him to undergo a term of one month of simple imprisonment in default thereof. The learned Judge convicted A-2, for offence under Section 12 of the Act and sentenced him to one year of rigorous imprisonment, and imposed a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and directed him to further undergo a term of three months of simple imprisonment in default thereof.
(3.) Since the appellants are aggrieved by the said impugned judgment, they have filed the present appeals before this Court.;