FAROOQ HASAN, J. - (1.) THIS criminal appeal is directed against the judgment dated July 16/24, 1985, passed by the learned Special Judge (A. C. D. cases) Jaipur, whereby the appellant was found guilty for the offences and sentenced as under:- U/sec. 161, IPc - One year's R. I. U/sec. 5 (1) (d) (2), read with Section 5 (2), Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - One year's R. I. with a fine of Rs. 500/-in default, 3 month's R. I.
(2.) BRIEF facts giving rise to this appeal are that on the report of Ramchandra (PW2) a case was registered at police station Kishan garh Bas & a cross case was also registered against Ramchandra (PW 2) and others at the same police station. In both the cross-cases, the appellant, who was Station House Officer, Police. Station Kishangarh-Bas was conducting the investigation. It is alleged that when Ramchandra (PW 2) went to the police station and contacted the appellant, he demanded Rs. 500/- from him saying that he would go to the site for inspection only after, the complainant (PW 2) would pay him Rs. 500/- as gratification. Upon this, Ramchandra (PW 2) alleged to have agreed to pay Rs. 300/- and the same is said to have been paid to the appellant and then, the appellant alongwith certain other constables went to his village and investigated the cases and made inquiry from the witnesses in those cases; and thereafter, on return to the police station, the appellant is alleged to have sent Ramchandra (PW 2), his mother and brother for medical examination, with a police constable. After medical examination having got conducted, the appellant alleged to have asked Ramchandra and his brother to go back to the village because the injuries sustained by his mother was to be x-rayed but, Ramchandra (PW 2) desired, to accompany with his mother thereafter, his mother's injuries were x-rayed and then they returned to their village. It is alleged that Ramchandra (PW 2) again went to the police station on 10. 10. 1982 and contacted the appellant and enquired about the progress of their cases, to which the appellant replied the complainant (PW 2) that cross case has also been registered against the complainant and others so, he (appellant) would give final report in cross-case only when Rs. 1000/- would be paid to him, and on persuasion by Ramchandra (PW 2), the appellant is alleged to have agreed to accept Rs. 700/. It is also alleged that Ramchandra (Pw 2) did not go to pay bribe to the appellant and made up his mind to get the appellant trapped by anti-corruption department and for this purpose, he went to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-corruption Department (Dy. S. P.-ACD) and made a statement before him as contained in Ex. P. 2. After receiving the report,dy. S. P. (Pw 9) sent for Balkishan (Pw 3) and Kailash Chand (Pw 4) and then the contents of Ex P. 2 were alleged to have been read to Ramchandra (Pw 2) in the presence of Balkishan (Pw 3) and Kailash Chand (Pw 4 ). Thereafter, Ramchandra (Pw 2) is alleged to have produced currency notes of the value of Rs. 700/- numbers of which were noted and were treated with phenolphthalein powder. After usual instructions were given to the decoy, Ramchandra (Pw 2), and Punch witnesses, namely Bal Kishan (Pw 3) and Kailash Chand (Pw 4), the raiding party proceeded towards police station Kishangarh Bas alongwith Ramveer Singh Banwarilal, Sharwan, Devi Sahai, Bishan Swarup (Pw 7) and Pannalal (Pw 8 ). Ramchandra (Pw 2) is alleged to have been sent inside police station while other witnesses stayed outside police station; and the money was alleged to have been handed over to the appellant who is alleged to have taken it and put it inside his pocket of pent. Ramchandra (Pw 2) is alleged to have then come out and given a signal to Sardarilal (PW 9), whereupon Sardarilal (PW9) alongwith Balkishan (PW3)and Kailash Chand (PW4) in addition to other persons, are alleged to have gone inside police station where the appellant is said to have been there. It is further alleged that as soon as the appellant saw the raiding party laid by Sardarilal (PW 9), he took out the currency notes from the pocket of his pent and threw them in the room; thereupon Sardarilal instructed some of the police officials accompanying him to catch hold of the appellant who was alleged to have tried to run away from the place where he threw the currency notes. Sardarilal (PW 9) introduced himself to the appellant and took him to the adjoining room. The notes were collected in the presence of the witnesses and their numbers were compared with those which were noted before the raiding party proceeded to trap the appellant. The numbers are alleged to have tallied. The appellant is said to have been questioned by Sardarilal (PW 9) as to why he demanded any bribe and accepted it. Both the hands of the appellant are alleged to have been dipped in sodium carbonate solution and the solution which was previously colourless turned pink. The same process was repeated with the pocket of the pent which results in the bicarbonate solution turning pink. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was presented against the accused-appellant for the offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and 161 of the Indian Penal Code, All that has been mentioned in the earlier paras was what the prosecution set out to prove before the trial Court. The learned Special Judge framed charges against the appellant for the offences for which he was challanged and to which the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in all produced nine witnesses in support of the charges framed against the appellant.
(3.) THE challan against the appellant was filed after obtaining a proper sanction which was given by Phool Singh (Pw 1), D. I. G. , Range Ramchandra (Pw 2) is the decoy witness though appeared in the witness box but turned hostile and, completely denied the alleged prosecution version against the appellant. Bal Kishan (Pw 3) and Kailash Chand (Pw 4) were the panch witnesses who in their statements before the Special Judge though admitted that they were called by Sardarilal (Pw 9) Dy. S. P. (ACD), and further admitted preliminary part of the prosecution story but they also denied that any money was given to the appellant as a gratification by Ramchandra (Pw 2) and that any money was recovered from the appellant by Sardarilal (Pw 9 ). Mohanlal (Pw 5) is brother of Ramchandra (Pw 2) and he was produced by the prosecution in order to prove that before the trap, Rs. 800/- were given to the appellant as bribe, but this witness, also turned hostile and deposed that no amount was given to the appellant as bribe, as was the version of Ramchandra (Pw 2 ). Darshan Singh (Pw 6) is a Sub-Inspector and it has been admitted by the prosecution that on the relevant date, Darshan Singh was holding a meeting at the crucial police station Kishangarh bas, and the money paid as gratification to the appellant was alleged to have been recovered before him. But, Darshansingh (Pw 6) admitted that he was holding meeting on the crucial date; however, he did not at all support the prosecution with regard to the recovery of the currency notes and on other salient features of the prosecution story. Bishanswarup (Pw 7) is the Inspector in the Anti-corruption Department, and he deposed that he accompanied with the raiding party; and further that, at the time when the money was given to the appellant Ramchandra (Pw 2) and the search was being made by Sardarilal (Pw 9), he was outside the boundaries of the police station Kishangarh bas though he was subsequently called and when he reached there, the appellant was trying to ran away. Bishanswarup (Pw 7) further deposed that the currency notes which were lying inside the room were lifted by Sardarilal and the same were handed over to Sardarilal (Pw 9 ). Pannalal (Pw 8) has deposed that he was present at the time when the raid was made and further that Ramchandra (Pw 2) went inside the police station and came back and told Sardarilal (Pw 9) that the appellant was sitting in the meeting and was not in a position to pay the amount of gratification to the appellant. Pannalal also stated that Ramchandra (Pw 2) again went inside the police station at the time when it was 5 o'clock and at that time, he also went inside the police station and seated himself in a barrack and he saw the appellant in the company of Ramchandra (Pw 2) having conversation in the room which is near the barrack where the witness (Pw 8) was sitting. Pannalal then narrated the story of search by Sardarilal (Pw 9) and the recovery of currency notes. Sardarilal (Pw 9) is the person who has also narrated the story made by the prosecution. ;