Mahesh Bhagwati, J. - (1.) CHALLENGE in this appeal is to the judgment dated September 06, 1986 whereby, the Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur, convicted the accused -appellant Jagdish Narain in the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as 'Act 1947') and sentenced as under: Under Section 161 IPC: Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/ -; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947: Rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 200/ -; in default of payment of fine to further suffer simple imprisonment for two months. Substantive sentences were ordered to run concurrently.
(2.) THE prosecution version as unfolded during trial is as follows: That on November 26, 1980 the complainant PW -2 Ramjiwan submitted a written report Ex.P/2 before the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur stating that he was a resident of village Mohammad Nagar Dhani. He was allotted 10 bighas of land bearing khasra No. 216 in Samvat 2019 and has been cultivating the same since then. About three years back, the accused -appellant Jagdish Narain entered the aforesaid allotted land in the name of Chhittar and Narain, against which he filed a suit before the Collector, Tonk. For that purpose, he required a copy of the Khasra Girdawari and for obtaining the same, he filed an application, which was returned to him by the accused -appellant Jagdish after striking of the Samvat mentioned in the application with the objection that it had not been stated for which year the copies were required. Thereafter, he submitted a fresh application indicating the Samvat i.e. Samwat year 2036 -37, for which the copy was required. It is alleged that the complainant met the concerned Patwari and prayed for issuing the copies of concerned khasras. He solicited for a bribe of Rs. 200/ - from him. The complainant expressed his inability to give Rs. 200/ - because of his poor economic condition but the accused -appellant did not yield and the date, November 27, 1980 was fixed for giving the copies after payment of Rs. want to grease the palms of the accused, he therefore lodged the report Ex.P/2 whereupon, the S.P., Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur endorsed the report to PW -9 Ummed Singh, Addl. S.P., Jaipur who formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused -appellant and co -opted two independent witnesses PW -3 Dev Karan and PW -4 Abdul Rahman. The complainant gave Rs. 200/ - currency notes of different denominations , one Rs. 100/ -, three currency notes each of Rs. 20/ - and four currency notes of Rs. 10/ - to the Addl. S.P., who in the presence of the independent witnesses treated them with phenolphthalein powder and having initialed them returned to the complainant with the direction that he shall pay these currency notes to the accused on demand and give the agreed signal. Thereafter, PW -9 Shri Ummed Singh, Addl. S.P., on November 27, 1980, proceeded to the residence of the accused -appellant along with the trap party and on getting agreed signal, caught the appellant red -handed with marked currency notes of Rs. 200/ -. He recovered the said marked currency notes vide memo Ex.P/7, lodged the FIR and during investigation of the case recorded the statements of witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C., obtained the prosecution sanction Ex.P/1 and after usual investigation sent the appellant for trial to the competent court.
(3.) THE accused -appellant was indicted for the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act 1947, who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 pleaded that neither he solicited for bribe nor he obtained the same. He has been implicated in this case on account of the animosity with the complainant.;