K.S.SINDHU, J. - (1.) THE appellant, Abdul Majid, along with co -accused Kaila Prasad, since acquitted, was tried by the learned Special Judge, on the following charges: 1. That you and Kaila Prasad S.I. on or about the 19th day of September 70 at Bandikui agreed to do an illegal act, i.e. to obtain a sum of Rs. 200/ - as an illegal gratification from Sukhlal as a motive or reward for showing favour in investigation of case No. 118 dated 14 9.70 under Section 147, 148, 149 IPC of P.S. Bandikui and that the said act of accepting Rs. 200/ - as illegal gratification was done in pursuance of an agreement and thereby committed an offence punishable under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code.
(2.) THAT you being a public servant employed as Head Constable in the police department at Bandikui directly accepted from Sukhlal son of Mangla Ram Meena resident of village Pragpura, Rs. 200/ - for yourself and Kaila Prashad S.I., P.S. Bandikui as a gratification other than legal remuneration or as a motive or reward for showing favour in the investigation of case No. 118 dated 14 -9 -70 under Sections 147, 148/149 IPC of P.S. Bandikui and there by committed an offence punishable under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code. That you being a public servant employed as Head Constable in police department on or about the 19th day of September, 1970 at Bandikui by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as such public servant obtained for your self and Kaila Prashad S.I., P.S. Bandikui a pecuniary advantage of Rs. 200/ - from Sukhlal Meena and thereby committed an offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 punishable under Section 5(2) of the said Act. By his judgment dated January 31, 1971, the learned Special Judge acquitted the co -accused Kaila Prashad of all the three charges. He also acquitted the appellant of the charge of criminal conspiracy punishable under Section 120B. IPC He however, convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/ - or in default of payment of fine, simple imprisonment for one month under each count. The substantive sentences have been or dered to run concurrently. 2. The facts, in so far as they are material for the present purpose, may be briefly recapitulated here. The appellant was posted as Head Constable and Kaila Prashad as SH Order in Police Station Bindikui on September 14, 1970 Sheodan, PW. 2, lodgod a report in the said police station that day accusing a number of persons of the commission of offences of rioting and causing hurt in the course of that transaction The appellant recorded the said report at 1 30 p.m. The complainant felt aggrieved that no prompt action vas being taken by the appellant towards the investigation of that case He, therefore, contacted SH Order Kaila Pramad and requested him to expedite the investigation It is alleged that Kaila Prashad demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 600/ from the complainant for doing the needful. Instead of agreeing to the illegal demand of Kiila Prashad, the complainant went to his relation Sukhlal PW. 4 and requested him for help to entrap Kaila Prashad Sukhlal met the Inspector Genera of Police, Jaipur and complained to him about the illegal demand made by Kaila Prashad. The I.C.P. passed the matter on Shri Khem Ghand Tejwani, a subordinate police officer, who recorded the complaint as Ex. P/8. 3. The investigation was entrusted to Shri. M.M. Kaushik, Additional Superintendent of Police of Anti -Corruption Department. Jaipur Sukhlal gave Kaushik one 100/ - rupee note and ten 10 -rupee notes which were to be eventually passed on to Kaila Prashad. Kaushik noted down the numbers of these notes in a memorandum prepared by him for the purpose. He also treated them with phenolphthalin powder before returning' them to Sukhlal with necessary instructions to pass them on to Kaila Prashad After giving the money to Kaila Prashad, Sukhlal was to give a signal to Kaushik so that the latter could come and catch him redhanded Accompanied by Sheolal and Sheodan, PWS, Sukhlal went to the Police Station to do the job as advieed. He went inside the residential quarters of Kaila Prashad, while Sheolal and Sheodan kept waiting out side. M.M. Kaushik and party stayed away at some distance from the said quarter, awaiting the signal from Sukhlal. It appears that Kaila Prashad sefused to accept the amount. Sukhlal came out and sought instructions from Kaushik if the amount could be passed on to the appellant instead of Kaila Prashad. Kaushik advised that, if the appellant was agreeable to accept the amount, it may be paid to him without any further loss of time. Sukhlal then contacted the appellant in the police station and paid the marked currency notes of Rs. 200/ - to him. It is alleged that the appellant put the ten -rupee notes in his shirt pocket and the hundred -rupee note in his pant pocket Sukhlal then gave pre -arranged signal. Kaushik immediately came inside the police station and caught hold of the appellant in the presence of Motbir witnesses, namely, Prabhu Dayal PW 3, and Om Prakash PW 9 He asked the appellant to surrender the currency Botes to him which he had accepted as bribe from Sukhlal There is some conflict in the prosecution evidence as to the re -action of the appellant on bring asked to surrender the money. Kaushik's version about it is that the appellant immediately told him that he had not taken any money from Sukh Lal by way of bribe and that the money paid by Sukhlal was towards the price of a she buffalo. The currency notes recovered from the appellant were, of course, the same which he had accepted from Sukhlal.
(3.) DURING the trial the prosecution examined among others, Sheolal, Sheodan, Sukhlal, Prabhu Dayal, Om Prakash, and M.M. Kaushik as witnesses in support of its case.;