STATE OF BIHAR Vs. BASAWAN SINGH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been brought by the State of Bihar from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Patna, dated 13th January 1955, by which the learned Judge set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the present respondent Basawan Singh and acquitted him of a charge under S. 161, Penal Code, on which charge he had been convicted by the learned Special Judge of Gaya by his judgment and order, dated 22nd May 1953.

(2.) It is necessary to state here very briefly the salient facts of the prosecution case. One Bhagwan Das (prosecution witness No. 7) had a ration shop at a short distance from police station Arwal in the district of Gaya. One of the persons entitled to receive rationed articles from the said shop was Mahabir Prasad (prosecution witness No. 10), who was a brother of a businessman named Parmeshwar Prasad (prosecution witness No. 11). Mahabir Prasad held a ration card for ten units, and on 4th October 1951, he purchased five maunds of wheat on the strength of his ration card from the shop of Bhagwan Das. A cash memo was issued for the purpose and the sale was entered in the register of the shop. Mahabir Prasad carried the wheat in four bags on two ponies. He himself went ahead on a cycle and the ponies followed him. A gentleman named Ram Singhasan Singh, stated to be the Secretary of Arwal Thana Congress Committee, sent an information to the police station to the effect that Bhagwan Das had sold the wheat in what was called the "black market". On receipt of this information, Basawan Singh, who is respondent before us and who was at that time sub-inspector of police attached to the said police station, instituted a case under S. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, against Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad. He seized the wheat which was being carried on the two ponies, went to the shop of Bhagwan Das and questioned him about the transaction. Bhagwan Das denied the charge of black-marketing and alleged that the transaction was a bona fide sale on the strength and authority of a ration card. He showed the duplicate copy of the cash memo and the entry in the sale register to the respondent. The respondent then checked the stock of wheat in the shop of Bhagwan Das and found that the stock tallied with the relevant entry in the stock register. In the meantime Mahabir Prasad who had been sent for also came to the shop with his cash memo and ration card. These were shown to the respondent who, however, arrested both Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad and took them to the police station. It was alleged that at the police station the respondent demanded Rs. 500 as a bribe from Mahabir Prasad. Mahabir Prasad could not pay the amount, but said that he would consult his brother Parmeshwar Prasad and the latter would come and pay to the respondent whatever sum was thought necessary. Both Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad were then released on bail. On the next day Bhagwan Das was called to the police station and a bribe of Rs. 500 was demanded from him also. It was alleged that the respondent told Bhagwan Das that if he did not pay the amount, the respondent would harass him; but if Bhagwan Das paid the amount, the respondent would submit a final report and no case would be started against him. Bhagwan Das expressed his inability to pay such a big amount and it was alleged that ultimately the amount was reduced to Rs. 300. Bhagwan Das, however, did not pay it for some time, and the prosecution case was that the respondent took wheat from the shop of Bhagwan Das, without payment of any price, between the date 26th October 1951, and 30th November 1951; in this way, seven maunds and ten seers of wheat, it was alleged were taken by the respondent from the shop of Bhagwan Das, though the sales were noted in the sales were noted in the sale register in the names of various persons. On 1st December 1951, the respondent , it was stated, agreed to accept Rs. 50 from Bhagwan Das in addition to the wheat already taken by him, in full satisfaction of the demand of Rs. 300.

(3.) When Bhagwan Das found that he had no other alternative but to pay the amount demanded by the respondent, he decided to approach the Anti-Corruption Department of the Government of Bihar. 'One S. P. Mukherji, Deputy Secretary to the Government of Bihar, was then in charge of the Department. Bhagwan Das met Mukherji on two dates, 3rd December 1951, and 5th December 1951, and filed a written petition to him. Mukherji sent for his Deputy Superintendent of Police, a gentlemen named Dharindhar Misra, who was also attached to the Anti-Corruption Department, Bhagwan Das produced before Mukherji five Government currency notes of Rs. 10 each the numbers of which were noted in his written petition. Mukherji put his initials on these notes and then returned them to Bhagwan Das. Mukherji then requested the District Magistrate of Patna to depute a first class Magistrate, and one Rudra Dev Sahai was so deputed. It was settled that on 8th December 1951, at about 7 p. m. the bribe money in shape of the initialled notes would be paid to the respondent, and it was arranged that Bhagwan Das would meet the officer from Patna on the canal road from Patna to Arwal at some distance from the police station. Nothing, however, happened on 8th December 1951, because the respondent was away from the police station. On the next day, that is 9th December 1951, the officers from Patna, namely Mukherji, Misra and Sahai, met Bhagwan Das at the appointed place at about 6-30 p. m. Bhagwan Das then told the officer that Parmeshwar Prasad had also arrived there for paying Rs. 50 as bribe to the respondent for the release of the wheat which had been seized and which was still at the police station. Parmeshwar Prasad was then brought to Mukherji at about 7-30 p. m. Mukherji questioned him and recorded his statement which was endorsed by the Magistrate, Rudra Dev Sahai. Parmeshwar Prasad then produced five notes of Rs. 10 each, the numbers of which were also noted in the statement. The notes were then initialled by Mukherji. After this, the party went to the police station. The officers who had dressed themselves as ordinary villagers and posed to be relatives of Bhagwan Das squatted on the ground a few feet away from the verandah of the quarters which the respondent occupied, and Bhagwan Das and Parmeshwar Prasad stood on the steps of the verandah where the respondent met them. Leaving out details, which are not necessary for our purpose, what happened then was this. Bhagwan Das paid Rs. 50 in currency notes which the respondent took in his left hand. Parmeshwar Prasad also paid his amount in notes to the respondent. The officers were then called. The Magistrate and the Deputy Superintendent of Police disclosed their identity, and the Deputy Superintendent told the respondent that he had received a bribe. The respondent tried to throw away the currency notes, but the Deputy Superintendent of Police caught hold of his left palm and the Magistrate caught hold of his right hand. There was a scuffle, and the respondent was brought down from the verandah and was taken to an open place south-west of the Police-station. Nine currency notes were found in the hand of the respondent and they tallied with the numbers noted down earlier. One currency note was not found till a search was made by means of a petromax lantern in the presence of two search witnesses, Ganesh Prasad (P. W. 5) and Janki Sao (P. W. 4). The search was made at about 9 p. m. and the missing note was found in crumpled condition in the south-western corner of the verandah. A report of the whole incident was then prepared by the Deputy Superintendent of Police and handed over to the officer in charge of Arwal police station. The case was then investigated into by another Deputy Superintendent of Police one Hasan of Aurangabad. After completion of investigation the Deputy Inspector General of Police, C. I. D., accorded sanction to the prosecution of the respondent on 1st April 1952. Thereafter, the respondent was tried by the Special Judge of Gaya who, by his judgment and order dated 22nd May 1953, found the respondent guilty of the offence under S. 161, Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year only.