G. M. LODHA, J. - (1.) THIS is a typical case of "trap within a trap"
(2.) THE appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge. Jaipur City dated 29th November, 1971 convicting the accused appellant Tej Singh under Section 161 I. P. C. and section 5, 1), d) read with section 5, 2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting bribe of Rs. 20/ - from a railway employee Phool Singh. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/ - on each count. The Speciel Judge acquitted Tejsingh under Sec. 5 (1) (a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for the charge that he was habitual in accepting bribe from the railway employees, 15 instances of which were made subject matter of the charge. An interesting feature of this case is that the prosecution story commences as well as ands with the star witness Phool Singh P. W. 1 who happens to be a railway employee working under accused Tej Singh and has been proved to be a companion of the accused Tej Singh in the alleged vice of drinking liquor of and on. In other words both the complainant who invited Special Police Establishment Officers for this trap and the accused who had to face this prosecution and conviction on the basis of the trap, planted by his own companion, are drunkards. This aspect of the case shall be dealt with at later stage in details. The prosecation story in short is that P. W. 1 Phool Singh, a Khalasi in Station Master's Officer Gangapur City went to Jaipur and submitted an application Ex. P. l to the Superintendent of Police, Special police Establishment, Jaipur that he was working under the accused who was Correspondence Clerk in the office of Station Master, Gangapur City. Phool Singh alleged that Tej Singh was a corrupt official and a drunkard as he is used to excessive drinking and he is habitual of accepting bribe of Rs. 10/ -to 15/ -from all casual labourers, non approved candidates) for retaining them in service. Phool Singh made a grievance that he was also being compelld to pay Rs. 20/ -for continuing in service, being arrears of bribe for April and May, 1967, failing which he was threatened to be chucked off from service. Phool Singh volunteered to get Tej Singh arrested and caught re -handed in a trap. It is alleged that on this the Superintendent of Police direated Shir Mahendrasingh and Shir P. D. Ajmera to lay a trap but somehow the accused become conciseds and refused to become a victim of the trap. As the accused did not accept the bribe, the trap could not succeed at the instance of Mahendra Singh and P. D. Ajmera.
(3.) HOWEVER, Phool Singh again approached the Superintendent of Police on 13. 6. 1967 and in the second time Mr. P. N. Shukla and Mr. Karansingh were deputed to organise a trap. In pursuance of it, they reached the Dak Bungalow of Gangapur city on 14. 6. 67 in the night. On 14 -6 -67 Phool Singh moved another application Ex. P. 2 and volunteered that Tej Singh be arrested in a trap. The police party called Bajrang Lal and Shiv Pratap to become trap witnesses. It is said that the accused did not attend office on 15 -6 -67 as he indulged in excessive drinks of liquor and there fore, remained lying in bed at his house. Neither the police party nor Shri Phool Singh wanted to leave the matter there having failed twice but continued their efforts on 16 -6 -67, Phoolsingh met the Police Officers at Dak Bungalow at 9 A. M. on 16 -6 -67, two notes of Rs. 10/ - each were delivered to him after which application of Phenol -phthalein ponder to them. An important feature of this case would assume great importance when I discuss the evidence later on, was that since Phool Singh was repeatedly trying to get Tej Singh arrested in the trap, the police authorities called Bajrang Lal to remain with him through out as an independent witness during the trap and Bajrang Lal was instructed to follow Shri Phool Singh to hear conversation between Phool Singh and Tej Singh and watch the passing over of the tainted notes to Tej Singh and then give a signal to the trap officers and other motbirs Shiv Pratap who were supposed to remain at a little distance from the place of the trap at the time of passing over the bribe amount to the accused. The prosecution case then proceeds to allege that Phool Singh and Bajarang Lal went ahead and the raiding party along with other witness Shiv Pratap followed them at a safe distance and took position near the Station Master's office at about 10 a. m. Phool Singh went inside the office and came out at about 11. 30 a. m. with Tej Singh. Timing so given by the prosecution from 9 a. m. to 11. 30 a. m. would also assume importance when the evidence in the cause is discussed at a later stage in this judgment,. It is then alleged that at about 11. 30 a. m. Tej Singh Phool Singh came out from the Railway Office of Station Master and they talked to each other on the step of the open Verandah. Then they proceeded towards the railway quarter on the metalled road and then they reached towards the back side of Ramesh -ki -hotel near the boundary of Sales -Tax Office and then they stopped near a tree at about 12 noon where on adamant by a greater of hard Phool Singh gave Rs. 20/ - to Tej Singh as bribe which was kept in his left pocket of the pant and both of them then reached the liquor shop nears. It was at the liquor shop that Tej Singh and Phool Singh were stopped by Karan Singh who disclosed his identity as the police officer and then recovered two note of Rs. 10/ - each, the amount of bribe alleged to have been given by Phool Singh to Tej Singh earlier at that very time. It is not necessary to mention in details the later story of the prosecution because that would not be material for deciding this appeal. ;