K. D. SHARMA C. J. - (1.) THIS is an appeal filed by Hari Rudra Bhavan against the judgment of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Raj Jaipur dated July 30, 1975, by which the appellant was convicted under section 161, I. P. C. and Sec 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months and to pay a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for one month on the first count and on the second to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months. The substantive sentences of imprisonment on both the counts were, however, ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE incident that led to the prosecution of the appellant may be stated as follows : - The appellant was an employee of the office of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) Jaipur,on February 19,1974. It is alleged by the prosecution that the appellant in the capacity of a public servant in the office of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) Jaipur demanded a sum of Rs. 20/-;as illegal gratification other than legal remuneration from Mangat Singh for payment of interest on his Jagir bonds. The appellant told Mnagat Singh that he would take Rs. 10/-, in advance and the rest of the sum would be taken by him after payment of interest on the Jagir bonds. Mangat Singh was not willing to part with the money and therefore he approached the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Jaipur, and lodged a complaint with him stating therein that the appellant was demanding bribe from him for making payment of interest on his Jagir bonds. The Additional Superintendent of Police. Anti-Corruption Department prepared a memo Ex. P. 6 land obtained the signatures of Mangat Singh on it and obtained currency notes of Rs. 10/ -. from Mangat Singh. One of the notes was of the denomination of Rs. 57- another was of the denomination of the value of Rs. 2/-, and the rest were of the denomination of Re. 1/ -. The Additional Superintendent of Police thereafter noted down the numbers of the currency-notes in a memo Ex. 6 in the presence of Jaggannath and Nathu Lal Motbirs, He them initialled the currency-notes and having dusted with the phenol pthalein powder gave the to Mangat Singh decoy the very day and instructed the latter to give a signal after handing over the said currency notes to the appellant upon his demand. The Additional Superintendent of Police sent Mangat Singh decoy for delivery of the currency-notes to the appellant in advance and after a short while reached the premises of the office of the Deputy Collector (Jagir) along with his party. However,the trap on that day could not be laid successfully because the appellant was on leave. A second trap headed by Gayatri Sharan, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department was laid on February 14, 1973, but this trap also did not came out successful because on that day also the appellant was on leave. Eventually on Feburary 19,1974,the Additional Superintendent of Police Mr. Tejwani succeeded in laying down the trap. As soon as the initialled currency-notes were passed over to the appellant, Mangat Singh decoy gave the agreed signal,tothe Additional Superintendent of Police,who rushed to room No. 24 of the office of the Deputy Collector, Jagir, Jaipur, in which the bribe was given. After reaching there the Additional Superintendent of Police disclosed his identity to the appellant by showing his identity card but in the mean time the appellant threw away the currency-notes Arts. 2 to 6 after taking them out of the pocket of his coat. The currency-notes fell on the ground towards the left side of the appellant. The Additional Superintendent of Police, thereupon, asked the appellant as to why he had thrown away the currency-notes on the ground. The appellant, thereupon denied the acceptance of bribe of Rs 10/-, from Mangat Singh and further denied throwing the currency notes on the ground. The Additional Superintendent of Police got the currency-notes picked-up from the ground by a member of his staff, viz Ramjilal and then got the hands of the appellant dipped in sodium carbonate mixture along with the hand-kerchief which the appellant was having in his right hand at that time. The hand wash of the right hand and the wash of the handkerchief were found positive for phenolpthalein powder while the hand wash of the left hand was negative for the aforesaid powder. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department preserved the washes in clean glass bottles which were sealed in the presence of Motbirs. The appellant was then taken to room No. 23 where he used to sit and do his work. The necessary record was seized from the possession of the appellant in room No, 23. Thereafter the appellant was again brought to room No. 24 where the pocket of his coat was also dipped in sodium carbonate mixture. The pockctwash was also found positive for phenol-pthalein powder and so that wash was also preserved and sealed in a bottle. The Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department took the coat of the appellant into his possession and collected other necessary evidence in the case The bottles of wash were sent to the Chemical Examiner, Jaipur, and his report was obtained The Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department then obtained requisite sanction to prosecute the appellant from the Jagir Commissioner and eventually filed a challan against the appellant in the court of the Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases under Sec. 161, IPC, and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The Special Judge, Ami-Corrupt ion Cases tried the appellant for the aforesaid offences. The appellant in his statement at the trial denied the demand as well as acceptance of bribe from Mangat Singh and further pleaded that Mangat Singh was in the habit of presenting applications on behalf of other Jagirdars with his own signatures of representing that he had-been authorised to receive payments on their behalf. The appellant asked Mangat Singh to produce certificates of authority given to him by other Jagirdars for receiving payments. Mangat Singh, thereupon, felt annoyed and got him trapped in this false case. In support of his above plea, the appellant examined 5 witnesses in his defence and produced certain documents. The Special Judge, Anti-Corruption considered the entire evidence on the record and came to a conclusion that the appellant was guilty of both the charges. He accordingly convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner stated above. Aggrieved by his convictions and sentences the appellant has preferred this appeal. I have carefully perused the record and heard Mr. Bhim Raj Purohit, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. R. P. Singh and Mr. S. B. Mathur, Public Prosecutors for the State. Firstly, it was contended on behalf of the appellant that there is no evidence on the record from the side of the prosecution that any bribe of Rs. 20/-, instalments of Rs. 10/-, in two each was demanded by the appellant from Mangat Singh. In the absence of any such evidence, the appellant could not legally be convicted merely on the basis of recovery of initialled currency-notes from the ground where they were lying The learned Public Prosecutors, on the other hand, vehemently contended that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that initialled currency-notes of Rs. 10/-, were demanded and accepted by the appellant from Mangat Singh decoy in the presence of Motbirs. I have considered the rival contentions. In order to find out whether the prosecution has proved demand of bribe by the appellant from Mangat Singh it is necessary to scrutinise the prosecution evidence with great care and caution. The evidence of Mangat Singh on this point is that he had talked to the appellant in connection with his applications marked Ex. P 2 and P. 3. He further stated that he asked the appellant to help him in getting payment of the Jagir bonds. The appellant gave evasive replies of Mangat Singh and asked the latter to come after 1 or 2 days. Mangat Singh gathered an impression from the evasive replies of the appellant that the latter desired some illegal gratification. He, therefore, asked the appellant why he was reluctant to help him in getting the payment. The appellant, thereupon, demanded a sum of Rs. 50/-, from him and promised him to get his work done. As Mangat Singh had no money with him, he approached the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department and informed the latter that the appellant was demanding bribe. In his cross-examination Mangat Singh admitted that he did not remember whether any other person was present in the office at the time when the bribe was demanded by the appellant from him. He further admitted that the demand was made by the appellant about 5 or 6 days prior to the making of the report Ex. P. 6. Hence, there is solitary evidence of Mangat Singh PW 3 regarding the demand of bribe by the appellant from him. The evidence of Mangat Singh decoy on this point is unworthy of credence, because when cross-examined whether he had mentioned in the report that Rs. 50/-, were demanded by the appellant from him, he merely stated that he did not remember whether this fact was mentioned in his report Ex. P. 6. He was confronted with portion A to B of his report Ex. P. 6 wherein he mentioned that Rs. 20/-, only were demanded by the appellant as illegal gratification from him. When confronted with the above portion he merely stated that on account of lapse of time, he could not say whether Rs. 50/-, or Rs 20- were demanded by the appellant from him. He further stated that the fact of demand of Rs. 20/-, mentioned in portion A to B of his report Ex. P. 6 might be correct. Apart from this, Mangat Singh did not say in his deposition that the appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 20/-, in two instalments of Rs. 10/ , each. In the absence of such a statement, it is hardly believable that the appellant would have accepted a sum of Rs. 10/-, only from Mangat Singh. Consequently, in the absence of any corroborative, evidence, I am of the view that the prosecution could not establish beyond reasonable doubt that a sum of Rs. 20/-, was demanded in two instalments of Rs. 10/-, each by the appellant from the decoy. As regards acceptance of bribe of Rs. 10/-, by the appellant from Mangat Singh, decoy, it may be observed that the evidence led by the prosecution to prove this fact is highly discrepant and unsatisfactory. Mangat Singh decoy PW 3 stated in his deposition at the trial that he handed over the initialled currency-notes to the appellants and asked the latter to do his work. The appellant accepted the currency-notes and put than into the pocket of the coat which he was wearing on his body. After the bribe was accepted by the appellant, Mangat Singh claimed to have given the agreed signal to the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption Department and his party. Meanwhile, the appellant came out of his room and entered room No. 24 wherein he was encircled by the Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption and his party. At the sight of so many persons, the appellant threw away the currency-notes which fell on the ground. The Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Khem Chand Tejwani got the currency-notes picked-up and tallied their numbers with the numbers of the currency-notes mentioned in the report. The numbers tallied with the numbers mentioned in the report. The Additional Superintendent of Police then got the hands of the appellant and the pocket of his coat and the handkerchief, which he was having with him, dipped in sodium carbonate mixture and found that the wash charged colour and was positive for phenolpthalien. In his cross-examination Mangat Singh admitted that when the appellant had accepted the initialled currency-notes from him in his room, one clerk was sitting and doing his work by his side in the room. He further admitted that when the appellant had thrown away the currency notes in another room, one clerk war sitting therein also. The evidence of Mangat Singh relating to acceptance of bribe does not find corroboration from Raghunath Singh PW 5 who claimed to have been standing at the gate of the room where money was handed over to the appellant by Mangat Singh. The evidence of Raghunath Singh is that Mangat Singh went inside the room where the appellant was sitting and he kept himself standing at the gate thereof. He could not say about the talks which took place between the appellant and Mangat Singh decoy. But he professed to have seen Mangat Singh passing over initialled currency-notes to the appellant who accepted the notes in his hand and put them in the pocket of his coat. Raghunath Singh further stated that after accepting the currency-notes the appellant came out of the room and entered another side room. When he went inside the other room, he saw currency-notes lying on the ground near the door of the room The Additional Superintendent of Police, thereupon, told that the currency-notes were lying on the ground. Saying this, he picked-up the currency notes. Mangat Singh told at that time that the currency notes had been thrown away on the ground by the appellant. Raghunath Singh was cross-examined at length by the learned counsel for the appellant in the trial court. In his cross-examination he did not stick to his statement given by him in examination in chief and changed his version by stating that he merely saw Mangat Singh taking out currency-notes in his hand and strat-ching his hand towards the appellant. He admitted, in clear and definite terms, that he did not see the appellant taking the currency notes in his hand from Mangat Singh. His above admission is quoted below in his own words:- ********
(3.) UPON re-examination, Raghunath Singh again changed his version given by him in bis cross-examination and stated that he saw the appellant extending his hand and thereafter putting his hand in the pocket of his coat and so he said that the appellant accepted the money in his hand and put it into his pocket in his presence. After a careful review of the entire evidence of Raghunath Singh, I cannot help observing that this witness had no respect for truth and changed his version time and again in the manner he liked. It appears from his evidence that he could not see the appellant accepting initialled currency-notes in his hand, because, according to his own admission the lower part of the body of the appellant was not visible from the place where he was standing and that only he could see the portion of the appellant's body above his chest. Hence, no reliance can be placed on the wavering testimony of Raghunath Singh, which is not at all free from reasonable doubt. Ram Gopal, PW. 7 is another witness examined by the prosecution to prove that the price-money was accepted by the appellant from Mangat Singh inside his room Ram Gopal did not support the prosecution case on this point. He categorically admitted that he could not see what was done by the old man, i. e. Mangat Singh after entering the room where the appellant was sitting on a chair. The relevant portion of his statement is as follows:- ******** From his above statements it is evident that on account of heap register lying on the table in front of the appellant, he could not see what was done by Mangat Singh inside the room. Ram Gopal and Raghunath Singh were standing together outside the room near the gate. If Ram Gopal could not see what was done by Mangat Singh inside the room on account of heap of registers lying on the table, it is not understandable how Raghunath Singh could have seen the appellant taking the bribe-money in his hand from the hand of Mangat Singh. The prosecution has not produced any other witness to prove that currency-notes of Rs. 10/-, were accepted by the appellant from Mangat Singh inside his room- ;