JUDGEMENT
-
(1.) THE instant appeal has been filed by the appellant
Kaushal Kumar Garg challenging the judgment dated
31.3.2000 passed by the learned Special Judge cum Sessions Judge (Prevention of Corruption Act Cases),
Jodhpur in Criminal Case No.56/1997 (8/1992) whereby he
was convicted and sentenced as below :
U/S 7 of P.C. 6 months' S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in Act. default of payment of fine, to further undergo 2 months' S.I. U/S 13(1)(d) 1 year's S.I. and a fine of Rs.1,000/ -, in r/w 13(2) of default of payment of fine, to further P.C. Act. undergo 2 months' S.I. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. Succinctly stated, the facts of the case are that one Surta Ram Choudhary, the complainant, submitted a written report Ex.P/1 before Sh. Kheta Ram, Inspector Rajasthan State Bureau of Investigation, Barmer on 18.1.1991. As per the allegation levelled in the report, the complainant was having an electric connection at his agricultural field. The first bill of the said electric connection was raised by the department for a sum of Rs.1141/ -. He felt that the amount of bill was excessive on which he approached Mr.Jethmal, Assistant Engineer in the electricity department on 17.1.1991. At that time, Ganga Ram s/o Kesra Ram Jat accompanied him. The Assistant Engineer instructed the complainant to meet Mr.Garg, the accountant and told him that his problem could be solved by Mr.Garg. He met the accountant Mr.Kaushal Kumar Garg (the appellant) posted at Electricity department, Dhorimana on the day prior to filing of the report and requested him to reduce his bill. It was further alleged that the appellant told the complainant that the bill of Rs.1141/ - had been deliberately sent by him and demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.300/ - for issuing a fresh reduced bill. The accountant further threatened the complainant that if the bribe was not paid, the next bill would be raised for even a higher amount by imposing a penalty. The complainant was instructed that if he desired to have the bill amount reduced, then he should meet the accountant in the office on 18.1.1991 with a sum of Rs.300/ -. The appellant informed the complainant that if he was unavailable in the office, then he could be approached at his residence. The complainant alleged that the appellant assured him that a fresh bill for a reduced amount would be issued to him on the bribe being paid. The complainant further alleged that he did not intend to pay the bribe and wanted to have the accountant trapped red handed.
(2.) THE complainant submitted his electricity bill to the Inspector and informed that he had brought Rs.300/ - with
him. He also informed that the appellant was habitual of
raising such exaggerated fictitious bills against the rural
consumers. Thereafter, when the consumers greased the
accountant's palms, then he would issue a fresh bill for the
reduced amount and destroyed the fabricated bill. The
complainant also stated that he was not having any prior
financial transaction or enmity with the accountant Mr.Garg.
On receiving the said report, the Inspector initiated trap proceedings at 1:30 P.M. on 18.1.1991. The Constable
Mr.Amar Singh was given a requisition for calling two
Government employees to act as shadow witnesses
(motbirs). Amar Singh returned with Chuna Ram Vishnoi a
Teacher posted at Dhorimana and Tulsa Ram Vishnoi posted
as Patwari, Dhorimana to stand as shadow witnesses in the
trap proceedings.
(3.) THE report submitted by Surta Ram the complainant was read over to the witnesses in his presence. Surta Ram
admitted the contents of the report in the presence of the
witnesses and confirmed that the report had been
submitted by him. He handed over three currency notes of
Rs.100/ - each to the Inspector for being utilised as the trap
money. The trap proceedings were rehearsed in the
presence of the complainant and the witnesses. The notes
were initialled by the Inspector and phenolphthalein powder
was applied to them. The complainant was handed back the
tainted currency notes with the instruction that he should
pass the same to the accused on his demand. The
complainant was also instructed to give a signal by brushing
his hand on the head as soon as the accused accepted the
bribe. The shadow witnesses were instructed to try to
overhear the conversation which preceded the passing on
the bribe and also to see the transaction. The trap party
thereafter proceeded to the R.S.E.B. office, Dhorimana. The
complainant was sent to the R.S.E.B. office and the
members of the trap party took their respective positions in
and around the office. At about 4:30 PM, the complainant
gave the pre -arranged signal, on which the Inspector and
the other members of the trap party rushed to the premises
of the R.S.E.B. Office. The accountant (appellant) was seen
standing with the complainant near the official jeep of
R.S.E.B. Chuna Ram, the shadow witness, was also standing
nearby. The Inspector introduced himself to the accused
accountant. He was taken inside the office and was made to
sit on a chair. On being asked about having accepted the
bribe from the complainant, the accused panicked. A little
later, he mulled over and then conceded that Surta Ram
had given him Rs.300/ - which he placed in his trouser's
pocket. On being enquired about the purpose of accepting
the amount, the accountant replied that the amount had
been given by Surta Ram voluntarily for issuing a scaled
down revised electricity bill. The hands of the accused were
washed in a solution of Sodium Carbonate. The wash turned
pink and was sealed in glass bottles. The accused was
asked to present the currency notes. He took out the notes
from the right side back pocket of his trousers. On tallying,
the number on the notes matched with the notes submitted
by the complainant. The notes bore the initials of the
Inspector. The accused was asked to hand over the trousers
worn by him. A fresh pair of trousers was arranged from his
official residence. He was made to change the trousers. On
washing the trouser's pocket in a solution of Sodium
Carbonate, the colour thereof also turned pink and was also
sealed in glass bottles.;
Click here to view full judgement.
Copyright © Regent Computronics Pvt.Ltd.