Farooq Hasan, J. - (1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dt. 18.5.85 passed by Special Judge for A.C.D. Cases. Jaipur, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ - Under Section 5(1)(d)(r) P.C. Act, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I. and Under Section 161 IPC sentenced to one year's R.I. and a fine of Rs. 500/ -, in default of payment of fine to further undergo three months' R.I.
(2.) THE brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1977, the accused -appellant was working as Asstt. Transport Inspector in Rajasthan State Roadways. On 22.10.77, PW 4 Madanlal Sharma, the Conductor, lodged a written report Ex. P 6 before PW 11 Manhpool Singh Addl. S.P. mentioning therein that he was working as Conductor in Rajasthan State Roadways. He had gone on duty as Conductor on Jaipur -Sambhar route and during the journey at Boraj Station Shri Kishan Kumar Asstt. Transport Inspector made checking and put a remark on his way bill regarding three passengers. Thereafter, on 17.10.77 Shri Kishan Kumar Asstt. Transport Inspector again checked his bus, when all the passengers were having tickets. The appellant again checked his bus on Andhi route and at that time in the bus all passengers were having tickets but that A.T.I took out 13 tickets of one rupee each 13 tickets of combination of 40 paisa each, totaling to the amount of Rs. 18.20 and that was deposited by him after taking the same from his house and when he went again on duty on the same route, the A.T.I, told him that his tickets were with him and also told that he would report regarding his misconduct. He further told that if Rs. 100/ - are paid him, he Would not report and would also torn out the tickets. He also told that at the time of enquiry he would give statement in his favour. He also that he would see that nothing would has happen against him on his previous remark. He also told that at the time of enquiry he would give statement in his favour. He further told that on that day he again met the A.T.I. and he had asked him to come at his residence at 4 -5 p.m with money, he does not want to pay the bribe money and has brought notes of Rs. 100/ - with him. After receiving the said report the Addl. S.P. (A.C.D.) summoned two motbirs. The report was read over to them. The demonstration of phenolphthalein powder was given. The memo of handing over notes was prepared and thereafter the trap party proceeded for the trap at the residence of accused. The decoy paid the tainted amount to the accused and thereafter gave a signal and thereupon the Addl. S.P. reached at the spot and disclosed his identity. The amount was recovered. A recovery memo was prepared and after completing the trap proceedings the Addl. S.P. came to the Police Station and registered a case Under Section 5(1)(d)(2) P.C. act and 161 IPC. The I.O.A.C.D. after investigation obtained sanction for persecution and submitted a charge sheet in the court of Special Judge for A.C.D. cases, Jaipur. Charges were framed against the accused -appellant which were read over to him and the appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 11 witnesses have been produced. The statement of the accused Under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded in which he denied of having demanded and accepted the bribe from the decoy. He further stated that Shri Madan Lal Conductor had taken a loan of Rs. 150/ - on 7.8.77 from him and executed a promissory note (Ex. D 2) in favour of the accused. According to him Tikam Chand and Laxmandas were present there and both of them signed as witnesses on the receipt of the promissory note Shri Madan Lal had promised to return the amount on an early date but he did not return the amount in time. For sometime he avoided and thereafter he become annoyed with him. He further stated that on 22.10.77. Shri Madan Lal came at his residence and paid Rs. 100/ - against the loan amount and for the balance he told to pay lateron. The aforesaid explanation was given by the appellant immediately after his trap.
(3.) THE accused examined three defence witnesses to support his version and to prove the pronote and receipt. It is a settled principle of law that in anticorruption cases following four circumstance are material and they are to be proved by the prosecution and these are; (1) demand of bribe, (2) Motive, (3) Acceptance of bribe amount and(4) Recovery of bribe amount.;