Abdul Karim vs State of U.P.

Surya Prasad, J.

This is a criminal appeal against the judgment and order dated 23rd August, 1982 passed by the then learned Special Judge (Sessions Judge) Nainital in Special Trial No. 1 of 1980 State v. Abdul Karim, convicting him under Section 161 I. P. C. and sentencing him to one year''s Rigorous Imprisonment there under and further convicting him under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to one and half year''s Rigorous Imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200/ and in default to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months.

The prosecution case briefly stated is that the complainant Sri Pritam Singh had purchased a land measuring 30 bighas 10 biswas situate in village Jungle Jogikher, police station Khatima, district Nainital from Sardar Amar Singh in favour of his wife Smt. Agya Kaur through a saledeed dated 29th March, 1978. On the basis of that saledeed, Smt. Agya Kaur moved an application in the Court of Tahsildar, Khatima, district Naimtal for mutation of her name over the aforesaid land. It is alleged that the accused who was posted as Registrar Kanungo demanded a sum of Rs. 200 as illegal gratification from the complainant Pritam Singh for recording the statements of the witnesses, who were to be examined by him in connection with the mutation case. The complainant did not want to pay the said sum of money, but he intended to get him caught redhanded while paying the same to him. With this and in view he met the Superintendent of Police, Vigilance, Barailly and moved an application for the aforesaid purpose before him. The Superintendent of Police, Vigilance called the Trap Inspector Ranvijay Singh at his residence and directed him to lay a trap in regard to the above matter. He also passed an order to that effect on the application (Ext. Ka7) itself. The Trap Inspector subsequently organised the trap and directed complainant to hand two currency notes over to the accusedappellant Abdul Karim. It is further alleged that the complainant had handed two currency notes (Exts. I and II) over to the accusedappellants in a room of the aforesaid Tahsil where the appellantaccused was sitting. It is further alleged that the accusedappellant had actually taken these notes and kept them into his Mutthi from which the Vigilance Inspector subsequently recovered them. It is further alleged that Fard recovery was prepared by the Vigilance Inspector (Ext. 9) on the spot. Thereafter he went to the Police Station along with the accused and lodged a first information report there in regard to the incident. On that basis a chick report was prepared and a case was registered. The investigation ensued. After the completion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer submitted a chargesheet against the accused.

The prosecution examined Pritam Singh (P. W. 1), Ramhit (P. W. 2), Jogendra Singh (P. W. 3), Jai Prakash Gupta (P. W. 4), Ranvijay Singh (P. W. 5), Pooran Chand Pant (P. W. 6), Jagdish Chandra Padhalani (P. W. 7) and Kunwar Singh (P. W. 8) and relied upon certain documents in support of its case.

The accused pleaded not guilty. He has stated that all the allegation levelled against him are wholly wrong and incorrect. He has also stated that he has been fasely implicated on account of enmity. He has not examined any one, but relied upon certain documents in support of his contention.

Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and having considered the evidence on the record, the learned Session Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant accused vide his impugned judgement and order referred to above. Aggrieved, the appellantaccused preferred this appeal against the same.

Heard learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the evidence on the record.

The learned Counsel for the appellantaccused has at the very outset expressed that the prosecution case is that the appellantaccused had demanded a sum of Rs. 200/ as illegal gratification for recording the statements of the witnesses in connection with the mutation case, that the statements of the witnesses had been recorded on 29th August, 1978 and that the incident took place on 2nd September, 1978 and, therefore, there was no occasion for the accusedappellant to have demanded the aforesaid sum of Rs. 200/ as illegal gratification from the complainant for the work which had already been done. His contention appears to be correct.

The learned counsel for the appellantaccused has further argued that the complainant Pritam Singh (P. W. 1), Ramhit (P. W. 2) and Jogendra Singh (P. W. 3) are the members of communist party and, therefore, they cannot be treated as independent witnesses. Not only this, but he also argued that there was no dearth of public witnesses at the place and time where the incident is said to have taken place, but none of them was made a witness to the incident and, therefore, the prosecution case cannot be taken to be correct in any manner whatsoever. His contention appears to be correct.

The learned counsel for the appellantaccused has further argued that there is not an iota of evidence on the record to show that the hands of the complainant Pritam Singh were actually washed with the solution of the sodium carbonate after the currency notes having been allegedly handed over to the accusedappellant by him. He has further argued that the handwash water of the accused was not at all sent to the chemical examiner and, therefore, there is no scientific test to that effect. This being so, the prosecution case that the complainant had given two notes to the accused has not been proved. For this reliance is placed upon Panch Lal v. State, 1989 A. Crl. R. 126: 1988 JIC 746.

The learned counsel for the accusedappellant has also argued that according to the prosecution case the alleged notes were recovered from the mutthi of the appellantaccused whereas the evidence on the record goes to establish that they were recovered from the table. His contention is not without force.

There were a number of persons present when the giving and the taking of bribe is alleged to have taken place. It is on this basis that the learned counsel for the appellant has argued it does not appear probable that the complainant had given the bribe money and the accused had accepted it in the full view of so many persons. His contention is not devoid of substance.

In the result the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment and order is set aside. The appellantaccused is acquitted of the offence with which he has been charged. He is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. He need not surrender.