Kalyan Dutta Sharma, J. - (1.) This is an appeal filed by the State of Rajasthan against the acquittalc Ved Prakash, respondent, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(l)(d) of the Prever. tion of Corruption Act by the Special Judge, Sri Ganganagar.
(2.) The prosecution case against Ved Prakash respondent was as follows: Harchandram and Inderjeet jointly entered into a contract with Panchayat Samiti, Raisinghnagar for construction of Pakka Khala of 56 R. S. Raisinghnagar branch at Gangwala in the year 1966 and deposited a sum of Rs. 7,218-by way of security for the said contract. This amount was to be withdrawn, after performance of the contract, by Harchandram as agreed by Inderjeet. Accordingly, Harchandram presented an application Ex. P. 1 before the B. D. O. 7-7-67 and prayed for refund of the security amount to him. The B. D. O. call for report of Ved Prakash respondent on 11-7-67, who was working on the p of Overseer at that time. It is in this connection that Ved Prakash was alleged have solicited a sum of Rs. 1,000/-from Harchand for making a report in the latter's favour for refund of the security amount to him. At first Herchand agreed to give the bribe but later on, he changed his mind and determined not offer illegal gratification to the respondent for making a favourable report on his application for refund of security amount. Hence, Harchandram approached Dy. S P. Anti-Corruption Department, Sri Ganganagar and gave him an application, Ex. P. 2 on 5-8-67 along with ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each for laying a trap against the respondent. The Dy. S. P. Anti Corruption Department, accepted the currency notes in the presence of two Panchas, noted down their numbers in Fard Ex P. 3 and put his initials to them each and returned them to Harchandram complainant with a direction to hand them over to the respondent on letter's demand. The Dy. S. P. then went to Raisinghnagar in a jeep-car for layiq down the trap. In the evening, he received an information from the complaint that he had a talk with Ved Prakash respondent, who agreed to accept the money alter a short while at the shop of the former, Thereupon, the Dy. S. P. took with him Amarsingh and Ajayabsingh, Motbirs, from the bus stand and went to the complainant's shop and took positions and directed Sarwansingh witness, who was with the complainant to give a green signal to the Raid Party as soon as the bribe was received by the respondent. After sometime at 7.30 P. M. the respondent arrived there and went into the shop of the complainant. Inside the shop, there was Harchandram and Sarwansingh witness, The respondent asked for tea in the shop. Thereupon, the complainant sent Sarwansingh for bringing tea for the respondent. Sarwansingh brought tea and the respondent took it. Thereafter. Harchandram took out ten currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from his pocket and handed them over to the respondent, who accepted the money and kept it in the pocket of his bush-shirt. The respondent then asked the complainant to come to him on the next day and further promised to make a favourable report on his application for withdrawal of the security amount. Then Sarwan Singh came out of the shop and gave a pre-arranged signal to the Raid Party Upon receipt of the signal, the Dy S P. and the two Panchas rushed down stairs and went into the shop. The Dy. S. P. disclosed his identity to the respondent and asked him to deliver money which he had received from the complainant. The respondent took out 10 currency notes of Rs. 100/- each from the pocket of his bush-shirt and handed them over to the Dy. S. P. who when inquired from the respondent from where he had got Rs. 1,000/-. The respondent replied that the money was received by the way by him. Then numbers of the currency notes recovered from the respondent were compared with the numbers recorded in the Panchayatnama and, on comparison being done, it was found that the two sets of numbers tallied. The Dy. S. P. took the currency notes into his possession vide memo of recovery Ex. P. 4 and prepared the site plan and arrested the respondent. Then he recorded the First Information Report and after collecting other necessary evidence in the case, he eventually filed a charge-sheet against the respondent in the Court of Special Judge at Sri Ganganagar, after obtaining requisite sanction for his prosecution under Section 161 IPC and 5(1)(d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act from the Chief Engineer. (Irrigation), Rajasthan.
(3.) The Special Judge tried the respondent and found him not guilty of the aforesaid offence. Hence aggrieved by his judgment of acquittal, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal as stated above.;