HASAN, J. - (1.) THESE five appeals (three filed by Yashpal Malik & two by D. S. Naruka-against three different same-dated judgments in three criminal cases Nos. 15/76, 16/76, & 17/76, lend themselves to disposal by this common judgment because, as has been jointly contended by the parties, the charges levelled against the present appellants are of similar nature although they relate to different months, in respect of different parcels.
(2.) IN each of three criminal cases Nos. 15/76, 16/76 & 17/76, Yashpal Malik has been convicted under Sections 161, IPC, & S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, whereas, D. S. Naruka with the aid of Section 120 B IPC but each of the present appellants in each of criminal cases, referred to above, has been sentenced as under: - U/sec. 161, IPC, - 1 year's R. I. U/sec. 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, - One year's R. I. with a fine of Rs. 500/- (in default, further one month's R. I. ). Substantive sentences under both the counts, in each of the criminal cases were ordered to run concurrently. The present appellants had been working as Customs Inspector at Foreign Post Office, Jaipur. Similar charges against these appellants are that they while functioning as government servant in Foreign Post Office, Jaipur, demanded & accepted illegal gratification and then released three foreign parcels sent by one,shri Tolaram from Hong Kong, containing tape recorders, three in numbers, without charging customs duty & other taxes etc. Three tape recorder's parcel Nos. 14568, 18459 & 18890 (equivalent foreign parcel Nos. 2757, 687 & 8080 respectively) in favour of Satnam Kaur, & Rajesh Kumar, without charging custom of Rs. 395/- for each parcel, are alleged to have been released by the appellants for illegal gratification of Rs. 200/-, Rs. 230/-& Rs. 250/- respectively in Spl. Cr. case Nos. 15/76, 16/76 & 17/76, in May, September, & October 1975. Upon receipt of an information from secret sources the C. B. I. investigated the matter, and found the appellants other accused persons indulged in such a racket. Therefore, after thorough preliminary investigation, first information reports were lodged in the C. B. I. After usual investigation by the C. B. I. , the challans were presented in the Court of Special Judge (CBI Cases), Jaipur, against the present appellants in three criminal cases, ibid. They were charged for the offences punishable under Sections 420, 477-A, 161 read with Section 120 B IPC and S. 5 (2) read with S. 5 (1) (d), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. After due trial, the learned trial Court acquitted both the appellants of offences punishable under Section, 420, 477-A & 420/120-B, IPC. But, it convicted & sentenced them, as stated above.
(3.) SINCE the trial Court admittedly based its finding in all the three cases upon the common evidence adduced by the prosecution, and that being so, common question of law & facts arise, therefore, at the joint request of the parties, these five appeals are being disposed of by this common judgment. Pertinently, the State has not filed any appeal against the present appellants against their acquittal under the impugned judgments. I have heard the learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record. ;