MEHTA, J. - (1.) LEARNED Special Judge, Ganganagar, by his judgment, dated May 3, 1967, convicted Oder Mal under S. 165-A. , I P. C. , and fixed penalty at a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of which to suffer rigorous imprisonment for two months.
(2.) THE prosecution story is simple. On July 21, 1962 Ramdan, S. H. O. Police Station, Sadar, Ganganagar, was investigating a case (Sardara vs. Shri Ram and Jas Ram) under sec. 324, I. P. C. Oder Mal Sindhi, Sarpanch. Hakmabad, and Kesarmal Jat, a resident of village Khanwawali, approached the Station House Officer Ramdan and offered him Rs. 100/-, as illegal gratification, to get the case compounded. Oder Mal also submitted an application Ex. P. 2 to the Station House Officer. Endorsement on that petition at the place marked between A and B was made by Ramdan. THE Station House Officer also made an entry relating to this event in the general diary Ex. P. 7. THE same day at about 6 50 p. m. , both the accused again approached Ramdan in his office at the Police Station Sadar, Ganganagar. THE accused told the Station House Officer that somehow or other the case would have to be closed and in lieu of that they repeated their offer of Rs. 100/ -. Ramdan refused to take the same. THE two accused then left the police station, saying that they would come back shortly. An entry to that effect too was made by Ramdan in the Rojnamcha, which is marked Ex P. 8. Ramdan then sent a report Ex. P. 9 to Shri Tej Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police Anti-Corruption Department, that very day at about 7-30 p. m. Tej Singh, accompanied by Sugan Singh, S. I. , Mohan Lal, S. I. , Magniran constable, and Hari Kishan witness, came to Ramdan. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police called another witness Tulsiram. On inquiry made by the Dy. S. P. , Ramdan spelt out whole incident to him. THE Dy. S. P. , then directed Ramdan to keep sitting in his office and to ring the bell, if and when the money was offered to him. He also asked the witnesses to watch the occurrence. Soon after both the accused came to Ramdan. THEy asked him to close the proceedings of the case against Shri Ram and Jas Raj. THEreafter the accused Oder Mal took out 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/- each from his pocket and offered them to Ramdan. Ramdan declined to accept the same. Oder Mal, however, persisted that he should show no hesitation in taking the bribe. Ramdan then rang the bell. Soonafter the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the witnesses entered the room of Ramdan. THE Deputy Superintendent of Police caught hold of the hand of Oder Mal and seized 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/-, each under memo Ex. P. 3. Site plan Ex. P. 10 was also prepared on the spot. THE Anti-corruption Department, after completing the investigation, submitted a charge-sheet to the Special Judge, Ganganagar, against the accused Oder Mal and Kesra-ram to face trial under sec. 165-A, I. P. C. After recording preliminary statements of the accused persons under sec. 251-A, Cr. P. C. , the trial court framed charges against the accused under the above section of the Penal Code. THE accused denied to have committed any offence. In support of its case the prosecution examined 8 witnesses. In their statements, recorded under S. 342, Cr. P. C. the accused negated the prosecution version. Oder Mal further stated that he was the Sarpanch of Hakmabad for the last 6 years. One Ladu Badri approached the Police against Orn Prakash, an irrigation employee, at the Police Station, Ganganagar Ladu was beaten by J. B. Jangir Singh. He made a complaint to O. P. Tandon against Jangir Singh. But he was told to withdraw the complaint. He, however, declined to do so. In the present case Ramdan caused injuries to Sardara. He wanted to get the case compromised. He, therefore, told the Station House Officer, Ramdan to get the case compounded. Ramdan said that the case could be compounded if the injured was to be given some compensation. In that connection he offered Rs. 100/- to Ramdan and that he was wrongly entangled due to ill will. In defence Oder Mal, besides examining himself as DW 2 examined DW 1 Lal Singh. THE trial court acquitted Kesaram for want of adequate evidence against him. THE accused Odermal was found guilty u/s. 165-A, Penal Code, and was sentenced, as aforesaid. Hence this appeal by Oder Mal. THE State has also filed a revision petition for awarding the accused substantive sentence of imprisonment. As both the appeal and the revision arise out of the same case, they are being disposed of by this common judgment. Contention of learned counsel for the appellant is that no offence under S. 165-A, IPC, has been brought home to Oder Mal, that Odermal offered Rs 100/-, to Ramdan as compensation to be given to the injured Sardara and not as an illegal gratification and that there was ill-will between Order Mal and the prosecution witnesses, relied upon by the trial Judge, and, therefore, the testimony of these witnesses should be rejected as unbelievable. On the other hand, the counsel for the State submitted that the offence u/s. 165-A, I. P. C. was amply proved against the accused and the learned Special Judge erred in awarding merely a sentence of fine, which is inadequate looking to the gravity of the offence and, therefore, substantive sentence of imprisonment should be imposed on the accused Oder Mal. As regards the points raised by learned counsel for the appellant, it may be mentioned that the star witness of the case is Ramdan, P. W. 7. He was investigating case No. 76 (Sardara Vs. Jasraj and Shriram), under S. 324, I. P. C. He states that on 21. 7. 1962 Oder Mal approached him and told him that the case should not be allowed to proceed further and that Jasram and Shriram should not be arrested. Oder Mal further told Ramdan that somehow the case should stand compounded. Oder Mal presented an application Ex. P. 2 to that effect to Ramdan. Ramdan made relevant entry in the police general, diary. It is marked Ex. P. 7. That very day at about 6. 15 p. m. , Oder Mal again came to Ramdan in his office and persuaded him to close the case and offered him Rs. 100/-, for the purpose. Ramdan refused to take the money. Ramdan made an entry of all these happenings in the Rojnamcha Ex. P. 8 and he also made report to the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Tej Singh. P. W. 8. That report is marked Ex. P. 9. Shri Tej Singh accompanied by Sugan Singh, S. I. , and some other witnesses arrived at the the office of the witness. Ramdan narrated the whole story to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The Dy. S. P. , and the witnesses concealed themselves near the office of Ramdan. The accused reached the place soon after and told Ramdan to close the proceedings of case No. 76, and offered him Rs. 100/-, for the purpose Ramdan then rang the bell. Thereupon the Dy. S. P. and the witnesses appeared on the scene and recovered 10 currency notes of Rs. l0/-each from the possession of Oder Mal under memo Ex. P. 3. Ramdan was cross examined at length and he has explicitly said that Oder Mal did not tell him that Rs. 100/-, which he was offering to him were meant for the injured person. He told him that he should get the case compounded and that he would make the injured person agreeable to it. Oder Mal in the day time had told him that his party was agreeable to pay some compensation to the aggrieved person for compromise. From this statement it cannot be inferred that Rs. 100/ were meant for payment of compensation to the injured person. If this money was to be given to the injured Sardara, Oder Mal could have handed over the amount direct to him. There was hardly any necessity for giving it to the injured through the agency of the S. H. O. , Ramdan. That apart, offence under S. 324, I. P. C. is compoundable with the permission of court. It was not within the power of Station House Officer to get the case compounded. There was, therefore, no necessity for giving the money to the SHO to be transferred to the injured, money could have been given to the injured for compounding the case after a challan had been put up before the court concerned by the police. Had money been offered to Ramdan to be transferred to the injured, a recital to that effect should have been available in Ex. P. 1 and Ex. P. 2. But that is not so. The statement of Ramdan has been fully corroborated by Shri Tej Singh, PW-8, D. S. P. Anti-corruption Deptt. , Ganganagar. He says that Ramdan met him and apprised him of the whole happening. He told Ramdan to keep sitting in his office and ring the bell if and when bribe was offered to him. At about 8 p. m, the accused entered the office of Ramdan. Before that Shri Tej Singh had taken position near the window of Ramdan's office room, wherefrom he could watch all that was transpiring. Oder Mal was telling the Station House Officer that he should accept Rs. 100 as bribe and get the case compromised. The Station House Officer declined to accept the money. Despite that Oder Mal took out 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/-each from his pocket and offered them to Ramdan, saying that he should accept the amount, Ramdan then rang up his bell. Thereupon the witness entered the office of Ramdan with other witnesses and recovered 10 currency notes of Rs. 10/-each from the hand of Oder Mal, under memo Ex. P. 3. The trial court, which recorded the statement of Shri Tej Singh, relied upon his testimony. Nothing is made out in the cross-examination of this witness, on the basis of which his statement may be viewed with an eye of suspicion. No ill-will or enmity appears to have existed between the witness and Oder Mal. There is, therefore, no reason why a contrary view in regard to the credibility of this witness should be taken by us. The testimony of Ramdan further stands corroborated by P. W. 1 Mohanlal. He says that Ramdan had told the Deputy Superintendent of Police Shri Tej Singh that Oder Mal wanted to get a particular case compounded by offering him bribe. A trap was then laid and 10 currency notes of Rs 10/- each were recovered from the possession of Oder Mal, just at the time when he was offering the same to Ramdan under memo Ex. P. 3. Similarly, Sugan Singh, P. W. 3, S. I. , Ganganagar, fully, corroborates the statement of Ramdan. It is true that Motbirs PW. 4 Hari Kishan, P. W. 5 Jag Ram and P. W. 6 Tulsiram turned hostile to the prosecution and the case hinges around the testimony of four police officers. The testimony of police employee should be treated in the same manner as the testimony of any other witness. The view that the testimony of a police employee, without any corroboration of independent witness, is unworthy of belief, does not appear to be sound and it cannot be sustained: vide Emperor Vs. Santa Singh S/o. Mula Singh (1) and Hukma vs. The State of Rajasthan (2) It has been suggested by the counsel for the accused that all these police officers were inimically disposed towards his client because on one occasion Oder Mal had made a complaint against B. J Jangir Singh. There was no reference about this suggestion to the Deputy Superintendent P. W. 8, Shri Tej Singh, P. W. 1 Mohanlal and Sugan Singh, P. W. 3 in their cross examinations and we are convinced that this ground is entirely false. On a consideration of the prosecution evidence we are convinced that the story as related by the police witnesses is true. The two independent Motbirs put their signatures on the recovery memo Ex. P. 3. If the story as propounded by the prosecution was false, protest notes could have been added, by Hari Kishan, PW-2 and Tulsiram P. W. 61 The reason why these witnesses have not come forward to support the prosecution case is, in our opinion, not that the prosecution story as given by the prosecution is not true, but that these witnesses have been gained over. Assuming for the moment that Oder Mal had a grievance against B. J. Jangir Sing re especially Shri Tej Singh plicate the accused falsely. It may also be mentioned here that the above-named 4 prosecution witnesses, Mohanlal, PW 1, Sujansingh, PW 3, Ramdan, PW 7 and Tejsingh, PW 8 are more or less connected with the trap. We are unable to accept the contention that these witnesses whose evidence we have already referred to above required corroboration in material particulars before being accepted. Though the above witnesses can be considered as interested witnesses as regards their evidence relating to trap, as a matter of law, it is not correct to say that their evidence cannot be accepted without corroboration : see Dalpat Singh vs. State of Raj. (3 ). For the foregoing, reasons the conviction of the appellant under S. 165-A, I. P. C. , stands on a firm ground. The appellant's conviction under S. 165-A, I. P. C. is sustained. Having regard to the circumstances of the case, we do not think that imposition of a fine of Rs 500/- on the accused Oder Mal is grossly inadequate, warranting interference. Consequently, both the appeal, taken by the accused Oder Mal and the revision petition, submitted by the State Government, are dismissed. The trial court will take necessary steps to recover in accordance with law the amount of fine if the same still remains unpaid. Learned counsel for the accused prays for grant of leave to appeal to the Supreme Court. The judgment has been given on facts. The prayer is refused. . ;