Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Chandra Bhan vs State Of Rajasthan on 6 March, 1989
Equivalent citations: 1989(2)WLN628
JUDGMENT Farooq Hasan, J.
1. This is an appeal directed against the judgment dated 11-2-1981 passed by Shri Mohammed Yamin, Special Judge, for A.C.D. Cases Jaipur, whereby the accused appellant has been found guilty for the offence under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) r/w Section 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act and he has been sentenced to one year's rigorous imprison' ment and a fine of Rs. 200/- in default of payment of fine, he shall undergo 3 months' rigorous imprisonment on each count.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that in the year 1975 complainant Sita Ram had purchased land of Khasra No.456 of his village Tunga and the Kharif and Ravi crop of this Khasra number was cut and taken away by Roop Narain and Vijay Narain Malies and a theft case came to be registered against them on an FIR No. 34/76. Thana Bassi lodged by Sita Ram which was pending investigation. In that criminal case Sitaram had to produce Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari in order to show his possession. Sitaram, as such made an application to accused Patwari on 3-12-76 and thereafter he kept meeting the accused and demanding the certified copies. On 10-1-77 the accused demanded Rs. 25 as bribe for giving certified copies and the complainant agreed to pay and asked the accused to prepare copies and told him that he would give the money the next day.
3. The case of prosecution further is that the complainant came to Jaipur and submitted a report Ex P.2 in ACD, the next day i.e. on 11-1-77 to S.P. Anti-corruption who marked it to Dy. S.P. Shri Jagdish Singh who arranged the trap Shivkumar (PW 4) had come with complainant. The Dy. S.P. sent constable Madan Singh who brought Ramesh Chandra. The Dy. S.P. then proceeded to village Tunga along with complainant Sitaram, Shivkumar, Rameshchandra and Mohanlal, Sub-Inspector Mahaveer Singh, Head Constable Sureshchandra, Madansingh Rajnarain and Radheyshyam Constables The police party stopped about 2 Kilometers ahead of village Kanota and there the complainant produced two currency notes of Rs. 10 each and one note of Rs. 5 on which the Dy. S.P. made his small initials and got Phenopthaline powder applied by Madan Singh Constable and thereafter these notes where handed over back to Sita Ram with instructions that he should give these notes when demanded by accused. Shivkumar and Ramesh-cbandra witnesses were instructed by Dy. S.P. to remain with Sitaram and to witness the giving and taking of bribe and hear the conversation between accused and the complainant.
4. Thereafter it is said that the police party proceeded to Toonga. The police party stopped half a kilometer before village Toonga and at this place complainant Sitaram was searched and Ex.P. 4 Jama Talashi was prepared. The Dy. S.P. sent Sitaram, Shivkumar, Rameshchandra and Suresh-chandra constables and Mahaveer Singh Head Constable and constables Radheysham, Rajnarain and Madansingh followed them at some distance and Dy. S.P. and Mohanlal S.I. stayed at bus stand waiting for the given signal.
5. It is further the case of the prosecution that the accused met Sitaram at post office and thereafter Sitaram, Shivkumar, Rameshchandra and Sureshkumar constable want to see the field of complainant, on their way one Rameshwar met them and Sitaram asked him to come to Patwar Bhawan with tea. Thereafter these persons after seeing the fields reached Patwar Bhawan where the accused prepared copies and told Sitaram that Naksha trace would also be required and Sitaram told him to give copy of Naksha trace. After preparing the copies the accused demanded money and Sitaram handed over the currency notes to accused who put them in the left side pocket of his pent. Sitaram then came out and gave the signal whereupon two constables came and caught hold of both the hands of accused and thereafter the Dy S.P. came and gave his introduction and asked the accused to produce the currency notes and accused told him that the notes are in his pocket. Thereafter, the hands of accused were got washed in Sodiam bicarbonate solution and the solution assumed pink colour. Thereafter, the accused was asked to produce the currency notes and the accused produced the currency notes from his left pocket and the notes were seized. The pant which the accused was wearing was also got washed in Sodium-bicarbonate and the solution and the pollution turned pink. The Dy. S.P. seized the certified copies Ex.P. 5 (Khasra Girdawari) Ex.P. 6 (Jamabandi) Ex.P. 7 (Nakshatrace) after taking them from Sitaram and application for grant of certified copy Ex. P. 1 was also found lying in a register in folded condition and was seized. The Dy. S.P. prepared Ex.P. 8 at site and registered the case under Sections 161 and 5(l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of P.C. Act and after completing the investigation obtained sanction for prosecution from Collector, Jaipur and filed the charge sheet against the accused.
6. As against this case of the appellant that the complainant was harbouring grudge and bore enmity against the appellant as he did not oblige the complainant by showing his possession on Khasra No. 456 which he had purchased but bad shown as disputed (Tanaja) in Khasra Girdawari of Samvat 2032 (Year of 1975-76).
7. The defence case further is that complainant Sitaram wanted to bifurcate the agricultural land Khasra No. 456 into plots and to make money by setting plots and the prospective purchasers inquired from the appellant if they should purchase the plots, the appellant had frankly told them about the dispute of possession, Sitaram then told that he would teach a lesson to Patwari.
8 One more immediate cause, though perfectly in discharge of appellant's duty was the serving of notice dated 21-12-76 of recovery of penalty against Gokul Chand father of complainant about twenty days before the trap. The penalty was imposed by Tehsildar vide his order dated 13-2-76 in which he had also ordered for demolition of the house constructed by the father of complainant on the Govt. land for which a report was made by the appellant in the Tehsil. Gokul Chand refused to accept this notice of demand dated 21-12-76 saying that the house is in the share of his son Sita Ram (complainant). The appellant bad forwarded a report to Tehsildar Bassi on 3-1-77 (eight days before trap) stating all these facts for taking proceedings according to law.
9. Sita Ram (complainant) also wanted to purchase other lands of Khasra No. 461, 462 and 457 and bad entered into agreement to purchase these lands with Khatedars of the lands and on these lands also Vijai Narain Roop Narain etc. Malies were in possessions since long and as such mutation was opened in their favour by the Tehsildar who bad asked for a report which was made by appellant. The matter went up in appeal and was remanded back to Gram Panchayat but again the mutation was opened in favour of Malies on the basis of report of possession made by appellant. Thus Sita Ram could not get these lands and his plans of making money by selling residential plots in these lands was foiled. As such complainant in order to remove the appellant from the scene planned this false trap in conspiracy with his brother-in-law Shiv Kumar and Shiv Kumar's friend Ramesh Chandra. Even the Investigating Officer favoured complainant by firstly allowing partisan witnesses to become witnesses. The case of defence further is that the complainant had not given any application on 3-12-76 for certified copy nor had asked for certified copy on any other date till day of trap. On 10-1-77 when complainant bad met appellant he had not asked for any certified copies nor the appellant had demanded any bribe. In fact on 10-1-77 the complainant had told the appellant that he wants to sell his land Khasra No. 456 because of dispute and would being purchasers on the next date on 11-1-77. The complainant in order to falsely implicate the appellant represented the witnesses to the trap as prospective purchaser and the appellant without doubting the complainant took them as prospective purchasers and it was because of this that appellant asked the complainant to take copies of Naksha trade and the complainant told the appellant to prepare copy of Naksha also. The appellant accused prepared certified copies of Khatauni, Khasra Girdawari and Naksha trace of Khasra No. 456, 457 and 474 of Samwat 2033 (current year) and not of Samwat 2032 which according to prosecution were needed by complaint since be genuinely believed that the certified copies are being taken for getting sale deed registered. After preparing the certified copies the appellant asked complainant Re. 1 12 the prescribed fee and the complainant paid it after taking it from one of his companions. The appellant entered the fact of grant of certified copies in the register kept for this purpose and entered the date of request as 11-1-77 and the fee charged as Re. 1 12 and obtained the signature of complainant over it. Thereafter the appellant stood up to put the registers in the Almirah and asked the complainant to pay the penalty since his (complainant's) father had told that penalty would be paid by the complainant. The complainant thereupon took out notes from his pocket and forwarded the currency notes but realising that the amount is much less than Rs. 100 (penalty imposed) the accused refused to accept them and told the complainant that he would accept the full amount of penalty. Thereupon the complainant forcefully thurst the currency notes in the left side of his pocket saying that be would bring the balance just now and when appellant wanted to take the notes out of his pocket to give these notes back, and complainant and two other persons (Shiv Kumar & Ramesh Chandra) caught hold of the appellant by hands and handed over the appellant to the constables who caught the appellant and rook him out side the Patwar Bhawan, Thereafter when the Dy. S.P. came appellant bad told him that he been falsely implicated and the complainant has forcefully, put the part-payment of penalty to in his pocket. The Dy. SP had inquired from the appellant about the application for grant of certified copy and the appellant had told him that no such application was given by the appellant and in fact no written application is ever taken from any body for grant of certified copy.
10. It is also the case of accused that after the arrival of Dy SP, complainant and Shiv Kumar had gone inside for picking up chair and a cot and they should have planted the application Ex.P. 1 at that time.
11. Before going into the merits of the case, I would like to mention that the investigation in this case has not been fair. Firstly the Investigating Officer who arranged the trap accepted partisan and interested witnesses as Panch witnesses and secondly Shriram Up-sarpanch, Panchayat Toonga and Gainda Lal Sarpanch of adjoining Panchayat Anantpura who were admittedly present at the time of the alleged incident in Patwar Bhawan were not cited as witness. The High Courts and the Supreme Courts have time and again emphasised that the quality and excelence of Panch witness is of paramount consideration while laying a trap to a public servant. These considerations, even were given complete go by the Investigating Officer. Thirdly, the Investigating Officer deliberately obstained from investigating into the reasons and circumstances as to why the complainant and witnesses had gone to the field of the complainant before going to the Patwar Bhawan.
12. The accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed to be tried.
13. The prosecution in all examined 8 witnesses and filed 17 documents in support of charged against the accused appellant.
14. The accused denied all the allegations levelled against may by the prosecution witnesses and produced 11 witnesses in defence; and filed 25 documents to support his defence plea.
15. According to prosecution, demand was first made by the accused on 10-1-77 and at that time one Phool Chand of village Tunga was present as is stated by the complainant before the trial Court. Phool Chand has been examined as a defence witness as DW 2 who has stated that on 10-1-77 Sita Ram had told the appellant he would bring a purchaser for land from Jaipur since he wants to sell his land. Appellant at that time asked Sita Ram to pay Rs. 100/- due on account of penalty towards his father Gokul Chand since Gokul Chand had declined to pay penalty saying that the house had come to the share of complainant. No suggestion has been made in cross examination by the public prosecution that the appellant had demanded Rs. 25 for giving certified copies to the appellant.
16. The fact of demand of bribe on 10-1-77 is not mentioned in the FIR dated 11-1-77. The omission of the date of demand of bribe in FIR makes the statement of complainant unreliable in this regard. Reliance in this connection can be placed in Suraj Mal v. State (Delhi Administration) AIR 1979 Supreme Court 1409, page where in, Lordship's has observed as under:
If, in fact, the appellant would have "demanded bribe from the complainant just on the previous evening, it is not understandable why this fact was not mentioned in the report which the complainant submitted 10 the Dy. S.P. and which is the FIR.
It is again highly unusual that demand is said to have been made only a day prior to the trap while the complainant had met the accused several times before 10-1-77 for getting certified copies but on these occasions on demand was made. The complainant has made following statement in this regard:
10&1&77 ls igys tc eS eqyfte ls feyk rks udy nsus dk cgkuk djrk jgk A fj'or dh dksbZ ekax ugh dh lcls igys eqyfte us fj'or dh ekax 10&1&77 dks dh A
17. In fact on 10-1-77 the complainant had hold the accused that he would bring a purchaser of his land, as given out by the complainant in cross-examination by the following words:
10 rkjh[k dks esjh eqyfte ls ;g ckr gqbZ Fkh fd dy eS viuh tehu cspus ds fy, ,d vkneh ysdj vkamxk vkSj mls viuh tehu fn[kkmxka vkSj vki ;gh jguk A This fact is in accordance with the testimony of Phool Chand (DW-2). The omission of date of demand of bribe in FIR Ex. P. 2 coupled with the statement of Phool Chand who was admittedly present on 10-1-77 clearly goes to show that no demand was made on 10-1-77 and further goes to show that on 10-1-77 the complainant had not asked for any certified copies of the record.
18. It is admitted by complainant Sita Ram and Ramesh Chandra PW 3 and Shiv Kumar PW 4 that on 11-1-1977 the appellant did not demand money from the appellant when they met the appellant at post office nor did the appellant demanded any bribe when they went the fields and thereafter till they reached Patwar Bhawan.
19. In view of these circumstances it can be said that no demand of bribe was made by the appellant even on 11-1-1977 till they reached Patwar Bhawan.
20. The trial court while dealing with this aspect of this case has firstly committed error in saying that on 10-1-1977 when demand of bribe was made none-else was present and has totally ignored statement of Phool Chand (DW 8) who was admittedly present on 10-1-1977 when the complainant came and talked to the appellant. The trial court has also failed to draw proper inference from the fact Chat the alleged demand of the bribe on 10-1-1977 by the appellant is not mentioned in report FIR presented by the complainant on the very next day. The trial court has again failed to consider that the complainant did not disclose the fact of alleged demand of bribe by the appellant on 101-1977 to Shiv Kumar his own brother-in-law and also on 11-1-1977' even though the complainant had taken him to the office of SP Anti corruption. Shiv Kumar PW 4 has stated in his statement in the very second line of his cross-examination that Sita Ram did not tell him about the demand of Rs. 25/- as bribe before going to ACD Office. It is against human conduct that if the demand of bribe was really made on 10-1-1977 and on account of which the complainant went to the extent of getting the appellant trapped, the complainant would not have disclosed and discussed this fact of demand of bribe on 10-1-1977 with any of his family members and would not have talked of it to Shiv Kumar to whom he had taken as a prospective witness of the trap. The finding of the trial court regarding demand of bribe is, therefore, not at all sustainable.
21. According to statement of complainant a written application for certified copy which is Ex. P 1 was given by the complainat to the accused for getting certified copies of Jamabandi and Khasra Girdawari of Khasra No. 456 and the complainant kept on meeting the appellant thereafter on every Sunday but the accused kept on postpoining the giving of the copies to the complainant. The defence of the appellant is that no application was given to him on 3-12-1976 by the complainant nor the complainant had asked him to give certified copies of Khasra Girdawari and Khatoom of Khasra No. 456 on 3-12-1976 or thereafter till 111-1977. The appellant claimed that he was on leave on 3 12-1976 and 4-12-1976 and was not available at Tunga.
22. The prosecution evidence on this aspect of the case consist of statement of Sita Ram and the search made on 11-1-1977 where in the application Ex.P 1 is said to have been found and seized from the Khasra Girdawari register Article-11. The complainant in his examination in chief has said that he had given application Ex.P 1 to the appellant on 3-12-1976 thereafter the complainant used to meet the appellant on every Sunday and the appellant used to say that he would give the certified copies. The complainant has further deposed that application Ex.P 1 was found lying in a register and was taken in possession by the Dy. SP. In cross-examination he stated as under on this point:
mu fnuks es eqyfte dh ifRu iVokj ?kj es jgrh Fkh A eSus tsk udy nsus dh nj[okLr nh Fkh og eqyfte dh ifRu dks nh ;k ugh ;kn ugh ugh gS A Further, the complainant stated as under:
izn'kZ ih- 1 dk irk ugh gS fd ;g nj[okLr eSus fdl dks nh Fkh A
23. It is thus clear that the complainant has given contradictory statement in regard to giving of application Ex.P 1. It is settled law that where the witness makes two or more inconsistent statement in his evidence at different stages, the testimony of such witness become unreliable and unworthy of credence. Reliance can be placed on the case of Surajmal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1975 page 1409 para 2. It is also pertinent to note that the fact of submitting the application Ex.P 1 on 3-12-1976 to the appellant has not been mentioned in the FIR. When cross-examined, on this point the complainant stated that he cannot say as to why he did not mention this fact in Ex.P 2. Then the fact regarding the submission of application dated 3rd December, 1976 become doubtful.
24. In his defence evidence, the accused has produced Ram Swaroop DW 9 Assistant Office Kanungo who has proved the entries of leave of 3-12-1976 and 4-12-1976 contained in casual leave register Ex.D 8 and has also proved the application for casual leave Ex D 9 It is significant to mention that realising the fact that the applicant was on leave an 3-12-1976, the complainant has modulated his statement and has said that he cannot say to whom the application Ex.P 1 was given by him. In fact of the defence evidence and the contradictory statements of the complainant in this regard it cannot be taken as proved that the application Ex.P 1 was given to appellant by the complainant on 3-12-1976 and as such the defence of the accused that this application was in fact planted on 11-1-1977 i.e the day of the trap itself can not be ruled out.
25. The trial court while dealing with this aspect of matter has said that the complainant made different statements in regard to giving of copy docs not make any difference because at the time of the trap when search was made currency note of Rs. 25/- coated with phenoptheline powder were reco-vered and has further said that if this application would have been planted on the day of trap then this application should have been found with the complainant at the time of his search which was taken by the Dy SP. But the recovery of Rs. 25/- currency notes had nothing to do with the giving of application on 3-12-1976 by the complainant or with the planting of this application on the day of trap. These were distinct facts and no conclusion regarding giving of the application Ex.P 1 on 3-12-1976 can be drawn from the fact of recovering of currency notes on the day of trap. As far as the reasoning of trial court that application Ex.P 1 was not found with the complainant at the time of his search by the Dy. SP before the trap, it is pertinent to mention that the Talashi of Shiv Kumar and Ramesh Chandra witnesses was not taken and Shiv Kumar is admittedly the brother-in-law of the complainant and he was actually interested in the success of the trap. It cannot be ruled-out that the application Ex P 1 was with Shiv Kumar and he could have passed it on to Sita Ram or could have himself planted this application when the complainant and Shiv Kumar had gone inside the Patwar Bhawan for getting the chair for the Dy. SP and a cot for other persons. More over Madan Singh who had taken search of Sita Ram has not been produced.
26. The fact of making any such application further becomes doubtful due to the reason that the complainant did not make any complainant to the revenue authorities against the appellant in saying that after written request he has not been supplied copies.
27. A look at application Ex.P 1 show that this application does not mention any year or Ssmvat for which the copy Khasra Girdawari was required and as such could not have served any purpose. This application Ex.P 1 also does not bear any endorsement by the appellant. It is again a fact that in the register Ex.P 9 where in endorsement of giving certified copies of Ex P 5, Ex P 6 & Ex P 7 has been made on 11-1-1977 by the appellant the day of request/application is mentioned as 11-1-1977 and not 3-12-1976 and this entry in Ex P 9 is signed by the complainant. This also supports the case of the accused that Ex.P 1 was not given to him on 3-11-1976.
28. DW 6 Sadar Kanungo and DW 7 have stated that in Tehsil Bassi there is no practice of filing application to the Patwari for obtaining the copy from Patwari.
29. Apart from this the appellant had also placed on record of this Court report dated 10-9-1985 made by Tehsildar Bassi which has been taken on record by the order of this Court dated 3-11-1988. This report goes to show that in Tunga Patwar Circle and in other Patwar Circles of Tehsil Bassi right from the beginning the practice issuing certificate copies on oral request is prevelent
30. All these facts and circumstances irresistably suggest that on application was given by the complainant to the accused on 3-12-1976 and that application Ex.P 1 would have been planted by the complainant or his brother-in-law Shiv Kumar on the day of trap itself.
31. On the point of seeking certified copies required to be filed in the criminal case pending in the court of AMJM, Dausa the prosecution evidence is doubtful. The complainant has stated that had purchased Khasra No. 456 in 1975 from Manglia and Gangasabai, and its Kharif crop was taken away by Roop Narain and other malies and the case in that regard was pending in the Court of Additional Munsif, Dausa.
32. The complainat has stated as follows in cross-examination.
eq>ls fxjnkojh tekcUnh dh udy is'k djus ds fy, iSjksdkj o Fkkusnkj us tqckuh dgk Fkk A eq>s ;g irk ugh Fkk fd 3&12&76 ls igys dh mDr tehu eqyfte us rukts es fn[kk j[kh FkhA udy esjk dCtk crkus ds fy, eaxkbZ FkhA esjs dks ekpZ 1976 dh fxjnkojh dh udy dh vko;'drk FkhA
33. The complainant has further stated:
ftl eqdnes es esjs dsk ;g udy is'k djuh Fkh mldk pkyku is'k ugh gqvk Fkk A ljdkj cuke :iukjk;.k okys dsl es eq>s ;g udy is'k djuh Fkh A
34. Shri Sukhram (APP) PW 7 has stated in his statement that the challan in Criminal Case No. 34/76 was submitted on 5-11-1976 and till that time the copy of Khasra No. 456 was not filed with it. In cross-examination he has stated that IO had come for getting the brief written and direction was also given to him. It is pertinent to mention that according to the statement of complainant the certified copies of March, 1976 were required to prove his possession in theft case. March, 1976 corresponds to Rabi crop of S.Y. 2032. According to complainant's own statement in Khasra Girdawari of Ravi and Kharif crop, the appellant had entered Tanaja. It is pertinent to mention that along with challan of FIR No. 34/76, certified copy of Jamabandi had already been filed on 5-11-1976 and for proving this fact, the accused had placed on record a certified copy of the charge sheet of this case in the trial court. On an application being submitted by the appellant before this Court the file of the Criminal case has now been summoned by order dated 21-8-1986 passed by this Court and is available in the record of the court. The appellant has placed on file of this Court certified copy of Jamabandi taken from file of Dausa Court along with application for allowing it to be admitted as evidence in appeal. This Court by order dated 18-4-1985 decided that this application shall be considered at the time of hearing A perusal of the file of this criminal case goes to show that the Jamabandi of Khasra No. 456 had been submitted in the court of AMJM, Dausa along with the other documents on 5-11-1976 itself when the charge sheet was filed in the court. It is significant to mention that the certified copies of Khasra Girdawari which the accused had prepared on 11-1-1977 was of S.Y. 2033 and not of the relevant S.Y. 2032. Further the Khasra Girdawari Ex P 5 are of 2 Khasra numbers viz. Khasra Nos. 456, 457. It is pertinent to mention what the complainant never produced any Khasra Girdawari or Khatoni in criminal case registered on his FIR No. 34/76 after the trap. The complainant has made following statement:
eSus eqyfte dks idMokus ds ckn nqckjk udy ysdj is'k dh ;k ugh eq>s irk ugh gS AiVokjh ds bl lEcU/k es eS ugh feyk Fkk A
35. A perusal of the file of the criminal case of theft would show that the complainant had not produced either any Khasra Girdawari or Khatoni after the trap in that criminal case.
36. On the basis of the statement of the complainant himself, it is clear that the Khasra Girdawari of S.Y. 2032 in which Taneja was entered by appellant could not have proved the possession of the complainant in the theft case and as such the entire story of prosecution that the certified copies of Khasra Girdawari and Khatoni of Khasra No. 456 were required by the complainant for submission in criminal case becomes false. This fact further fortifies the case of accused that in fact the complainant never required any Khasra Gudawari or Khatoni for being filed in the theft case and in fact the complainant had made out this story only for the purpose of implicating the appellant in a false case.
37. Before dealing with the question whether the complainant on being asked by the accused gave Rs. 25/- as bribe and the accused accepted with consenting mind. In this regard evidence has to be examined in the light of this finding that the giving of application for certified copies on 3-12-1976 is not proved and the demand of bribe of Rs. 25/- by the appellant also is not proved.
38. In regard to the giving and acceptance of Rs. 25/- the prosecution evidence consist of the statement of complainant Sita Ram and his three witnesses viz., Ramesh Chandra Shiv Kumar and Rameshwar apart from the statement of Investigating Officer. The complainant has stated that after preparation of certified copies, the appellant asked for money and the complainant gave Rs. 25/- to him and the appellant kept the currency notes in the pocket and thereafter the Constables who were out side came and caught the bands of the appellant. In cross-examination this witness has denied that the accused had demanded Re 1.12 as fee for giving certified copies and further says in cross examination.
esjk iqfyl es c;ku fy;k Fkk A c;ku izn'kZ Mh- 1 dk fgLlk ^^,-lh-ch-^^ eSus iqfyl dks ugh fn;k] xyr fy[kk gS A eS ;g ugh dg ldrk ml le; eqyfte us :i;s Qhl ds ekaxs ;k fdl ckr ds eqyfte us rks ;g dgk Fkk fd :i;s ykvsk A
39. It is thus apparent that according statement of the complainant referred to above appellant had not demanded bribe even on 11-1-77.
40. Ramesh Chandra does not say that money was demanded by the appellant but only states that the complainant after receiving the copies gave Rs. 25/- to the appellant which he kept in pocket of his pent. This witnesses has further stated that be does not remember as to whether any conversation had taken place between complainant and the appellant at the time when copies were given to the complainant. The relevant part is reproduced:
eqyfte }kjk ifjoknh dks udy u nsus o ifjoknh }kjk eqyfte dks iSlk nsus ds chp dksbZ ckr vkil es budh gqbZ ks rks eq>s /;ku ugh A
41. Ramesh Chandra has stated:
^eqyfte us lhrkjke ls :0 1-12 iSls udyks o Vªsl dh Qhl ekaxh gks rks eq>s irk ugh gS AQhl dh ckr t:j gqbZ Fkh A^^ ^^jksrs&jksrs eqyfte dqN dg rks jgk Fkk A fdUrq esjk /;ku HkhM+ dh rjQ Fkk blfy, isukYVh ds ckjs es dg jgk Fkk ;k ugh eq>s /;ku ugh gS A Ramesh Chandra has also denied having given portion A to B of his police statement Ex D 2 where in be bad stated that Re. 1.12 may was given a as fee of certified copies.
42. Shiv Kumar (PW 4) has stated that after preparation of certified copies accused appellant asked for money and complainant gave Rs. 25/- to him which the appellant kept in the pocket of his Pent. Shiv Kumar also denies having given portion A to B of his police statement Ex D. 3 wherein he also admitted the payment of Re. 1.12 as fee. This witness stated as follows:
dk;Zokgh djus ds ckn vfHk;qDr ls Mh-,l-ih- us 25@& :0 fj'or ysus ds ckjs es iwNk Fkk ysfdu gk gYys es eq>s irk ugh mlus D;k tckc fn;k Fkk A In cross-examination, Shiv Kumar stated as under:
ftl le; Mh-,l-ih- us eqyfte dks idM+k rks eqyfte jksrs&jksrs isukYVh ds ckjs es dg jgk Fkk ;k ugh eSus ugh lquk A jksrs jksrs dqN dg jgk Fkk D;k dg jgk Fkk eq>s irk ugh A
43. Rameshwar Prasad (PW 5) has stated that the appellant prepared the copies and thereafter asked the complainant to give Re. 1 and 12 paise as fee and thereafter gave Re. 1.12 and obtained the copies. After the appellant asked the complainant that dues are outstanding against him and the complainant agreed to do part payment. This witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution, wherein he maintained that the appellant had asked for penalty. He has also denied that the appellant had taken Rs. 25/- for giving certified copies. In cross examination by counsel for accused, this witness has said that the appellant was demanding Rs. 100/- on account of penalty but Sitaram wished to pay only Rs. 25/-.
44. It is true that Rs. 25/- were recovered from appellant but for that the appellant has given his explanation and also the evidence which will be discussed in the latter part of this judgment. The prosecution, how ever, must prove that Rs. 25/- were given to the appellant by way of bribe for proving offence under Section 5(1)(d) of the Act. Since the presumption under Section 4(1) as held by Hon'ble Supreme Court does not apply to offence under Section 5(l)(d) of the Act and as such for this offence prosecution has to prove that Rs. 25/- were given as bribe. None of the witnesses has stated that Rs. 25/- were given as bribe. Sita Ram (complainant) himself has only stated that the appellant asked for money and complainant gave Rs 25/-to appellant. Sita Ram has not said that he gave Rs. 25/- as bribe. Sitaram as stated above has raid in his cross examination that he cannot say whether the accused demanded money for fee or on account of any other thing. Ramesh Chander PW 3 and Shiv Kumar PW 4 have also not stated that the amount of Rs. 25/- were given as bribe. These witnesses as well as Sita Ram have resiled from their police statements about giving of copying fee of Re. 1.12. which goes to show that they want to suppress the fact that the appellant had asked for giving Re. 1.12 as copying fee. This contradiction in their statements makes their assertion about demand of money and payment of Rs. 25/- as bribe highly doubtful.
45. Shri Jagdish Singh PW 8 Dy. SP, Anti Corruption has narrated the entire sequence of events and leading to the recovery of notes from the appellant and the preparation of proceedings of trap contained in Ex.P 8 and the seizure of application Ex P 1 and the certified copies etc. It is significant to mention that even Jagdish Singh Dy. SP. has given a discrepant and rather contradictory statements on the points as to what was said by the accused just after the trap. A part from this Jagdish Singh's conduct as investigation has not been fair, He did not record the statements of Genda and Shriram who were independent witnesses and were Sarpanch and Up-sarpanch respectively. This witness also did not investigate into the facts as to why complainant Shiv Kumar and Ramesh Chandra had gone to see the fields of complainant. Jagdish Singh, who was the police officer was interested in the success of trap and his above mentioned conduct makes his testimony unreliable. It is not out of place to mention that complainant was serving in Home department. This witness has gone to the extent of deposing that he did not know that witnesses Shiv Kumar and Ramesh Chandra and the complainant were all working in the Secretairate while in Ex P.3 and Ex.P 4 it has been stated all the three were working in Secretariate He has also given six different versions of what the appellant told him after the trap about Rs. 25/- which is as under:
1- eSus eqyfte dks viuk ifjp; nsdj eqyfte ls iwNk D;k mlls fj'or yh gS] rks eqyfte us gka Hkj yh A 2- ifjp; nsrs gh eqyfte us LohdkjskfDr ugh dh cfYd gkFk /kqykus ds ckn gh eqyfte ls fj'orh :i;s ysus ds ckjs es iwNk ftldks mlus Lohdkjk Fkk A ftldks eSus QnZ izn'kZ ih- 8 dk fgLlk vks-ls ih-] D;w- ls vkj- n'kkZ;k Fkk A 3- eqyfte us ;g cryk;k Fkk fd mlu fj'or ds :i es uksV ugh fy, cfYd buke ds :i es es fy, Fks A 4- buke okyh ckr vks- ls ih- ds i'pkr~ tc eSus eqyfte ls vyx ls ekSds ij iwNk rks crykbZ ftldk uksV QnZ es D;w- ls vkj- fn;k Fkk A 5- xokgku ds lkeus gh dk;Zokgh ds nkSjku bckjr D;w- ls vkj- iwNk x;k Fkk A fy[kk Ikh ekSds ij ckn es dh Fkh ysfdu tqckuh iwNrk{k igys dh FkhA 6- ;g eqs ;kn ugh fd eqyfte us viuk fMVsy o.kZu fdl LVst ij fn;k vks- ls ih- bckjr ds dgus ds rqjUr i'pkr~ ;k dqqqN nsj i'pkr fgLlk D;w- ls vkj- eqyfte us cryk;k ;g eq>s ;kn ugh A Thus the statement of PW 8 is not worth to be relied upon.
46. I have already mentioned the defence set up by the appellant. In support of this defence, the appellant had examined Shriram (DW 5), who was Up-sarpanch of Tunga Panchayat at the time of trap and Gandalal (DW 11), who was Sarpanch of adjoining Panchayat Anantpura at that time. The presence of these witnesses is admitted by the complainant and other witnesses. Shriram & Gainda have completely supported the defence of the appellant. In order to prove that the penalty of Rs. 100/- was out standing against Gokul, father of complainant and that Gokul Chand had said that Sitaram has to pay this amount, the appellant has proved Ex D 4 the order by which penalty of Rs. 100/- was imposed on father of complainant and has further produced Ex D 11 demand notice of penalty and Ex D 12 the list of persons against whom penalty was outstanding and also Ex D 13 a report submitted on 3-1-77 by the appellant to Tehsildar saying that Gokul Chand has refused to accept service of demand notice and has said that the house in question has come to the share of his son Sitaram and he will ask Sita Ram in this regard. The appellant had also produced Radhamohan (DW 8) who had come to Jaipur along with father of complainant on 12-1-1977 and had met Sitaram for the purchase of a plot of the Khasra No. 456. At that time Gokul Chand had fold Sitaram to pay Rs. 100/- due on account of penalty. Phool Chand (DW 2) has also said that on 10-1-77 (a day before the trap) the complainant had said that his father had coins to Jaipur and he would deposit the penalty. The complainant in his cross-examination has also admitted that penalty was imposed regarding his house.
47. The statement of defence witnesses who were admittedly present and the statements of complainant and his witnesses in cross examination amply proves the defence of appellant that Rs. 25/- were put force fully by complainant in the pocket of appellant as part payment of penalty which the accused declined to accept and after the thrusting of Rs. 25/- the complainant and Shiv Kumar and Ramesh Chandra caught hold the hands of the appellant and did not allow the appellant to take out the currency notes from his pocket and took the appellant outside with his hands tied-up and immediately the constables came and caught the appellant and as such the appellant had no opportunity of returning the currency notes back to complainant.
48. It is significant to mention that the trial Court has acted on surmises and conjuctures in holding that this plea of the accused is not tenable since according to trial Court the currency notes could not have been thurst into the pocket of the pent in winter season. The defence witnesses Shriram (PW 5) and Ganda (DW 11) have been disbelieved without assigning any cogent reason. In this regard it is also pertinent to mention that Sitaram (PW 2), Ramesh Chandra (PW 3) & Shiv Kumar (PW 4) have stated that at the relevant time accused and complainant and both the witnesses were standing, when the appellant was standing it was not difficult to thrust the currency notes in to pocket.
49. The trial Court has not at all applied its mind whether Rs. 25/- was taken or meant as bribe and whether appellant took it with consenting mind. The trial Court has given patently wrong reasoning to disbelieve the defence evidence on the following grounds, Firstly, the trial court has said that for proving his defence accused should have produced father of complainant as defence witness, and on this ground adverse inference is drawn. It goes without saying that asking appellant to produce father of complainant was preposturous.
Secondly, the trial Court has said that if Rs. 25/- were paid as penalty the accused should have given receipt for the same to complainant. As discussed above the complainant has forced Rs. 25/- into the pocket of appellant. There was no question of giving any receipt for Rs. 25/- which was a part of the penalty.
Thirdly, the trial Court has utilised statement of appellant recorded in Ex.P 8 for repelling the plea that Rs. 25/- were not forced into his pocket as penalty. The trial Court has said that in Ex.P 8 it is not recorded as penalty but that the complainant forcefully put Rs. 25/- in appellant's pocket as Inaam. But in view of proposition laid down in Cr.LR (SC) 1978 page 87 para 36 the trial Court could not have made use of this explanation.
Forthly, the trial court has utilised presumption under Section 4(1) of P C Act to hold that Rs. 25/- were meant as bribe when this presumption under Section 4(1) could not be possible to convict the appellant Under Section 5(1)(b) of the Act. For these observation reliance can be placed on the following cases:
(1) Sitaram v. State of Rajasthan in ; (2) AIR 1975 Supreme Court 399 at p. 401.
50. In this view of the position of law of the prosecution bad to prove by clear and unimpeachable evidence that the appellant dishonestly accepted Rs. 25/- with consenting mind. It is settled position of law that mere recovery of currency notes from accused is not sufficient to prove offence under Section 5(l)(d) of the Act and the prosecution has to prove that the accused accepted the tainted money with consenting mind, as is observed in the following cases:
(2) Surajmal v. Delhi Administration AIR 1979 SC page 1409 at page 1410.
(2) Lallu Khan v. State 1988(1) WLN 424.
(3) R.Cr. Cases 1980 p. 265-266.
The trial Court has committed error in holding the acceptance of tained money proved from recovery. The Supreme Court in Raghuvir Singh v. State 1976 Cr.LJ 172 at page 177 in para 8 observed as under:
We must take this opportunity of impressing on the officers functioning in Anti-corruption department to insist on observing this safeguard as zealously and seruplously as possible for the protection of public servants against whom tray may have to be laid. They must seriously endeavour to secure really in dependent and respect-able witnesses so that the evidence in regard to said inspire confidence in the mind of the court and the court is left in doubt as to whether or not money was paid by way of bribe.
In the present case the appellant has led documentary as well as oral evidence to prove that complainant Sitaram was annoyed with him and bore grudge against the appellant as is clear from Ex. D 6 and D 7 and from the statement of DW 1 to DW 8.
51. The above mentioned documents Ex. D 6 and Ex. D 7 and the statement of complainant in cross-examination clearly goes to prove that he had aggrieved against the accused.
(ii) Complainant wanted to sub-divide Khasra No. 456 and sell it for residential plots and the accused on being asked by prospective purchasers had said that there is dispute of possession.
The appellant has proved this part by producing Radha Mohan Gupta. (DW 8) who had purchased one such plot out of Khasra No. 456.
D.W. 1 Jasraj Who wanted to purchase a plot and inquired from appellant who told him about dispute of possession, when this witness met Sitaram, then Sitaram had said that he would take the Patwari to task (Twenty days before the appellant was trapped).
52. The learned trial court has not appreciated the evidence of enmity between complainant and appellant in the right prospective. The trial Court in its entire judgment has not referred the fact that appellant had entered Tanaja (dispute) in both the crops of Samvat 2032 which was pointedly put to the complainant in cross examination as referred above The trial Court also did not refer to report Ex D 6 made by appellant about dispute of possession on Khasara No. 456 in Samwat 2032 nor did it refer to relevant part of cross examination of Sitaram. The trial Court has thus not considered the most important ground which had annoyed the complainant against the appellant which has occasioned failure of justice. The trial Court has also not considered the question of the attempt to purchase adjoining Khara Nos. 461, 462, and 457 by complainant which attempt was foiled on account of the mutation of these Khasra numbers being entered in favour of Vijay Narain, Ram Narain Malies on a report of actual physical possession being made by the appellant showing possession of the Malies. The trial Court has further brushed aside the evidence of enmity by saving that the complainant was an educated man arid it was not difficult for him to get the agricultural lands converted into abadi and this reason cannot be regarded as sufficient for foisting a false case. The trial Court has lost sight of the important fact that when Tanaja was entered over Khasra Wo. 456.
53. For the payment of Rs. 25. Sitaram's statement is not wrothy of credence. He does not say that he got the appellant trapped since he did not want to give Rs. 25 but on the contrary Sitraram has stated as under:
^eS fQj 10&1&77 dks eqyfte ls raqxk es iVokj [kkuk es feyk o udys ekaxh rks eqyfte us udy nsus ds fy, 25 :i;s ekaxs A eSus iSls nsus dh gka Hkj yh o udy rS;kj djus dks dgk A eSus :i;s nwljs fnu nsus dks dgk Fkk A
54. This statement firstly shows that he never declined to give Rs. 25 nor felt ill about it rather he readily expressed his willingness to pay it. If that being so he could and should have taken copies on 10-1-77 itself. There was no reason for postponing the taking of certified copies to next day which was a working day on which he could have come from Jaipur only after taking leave from his office. This statement coupled with the fact that he in fact never required certified copies which were taken on 11-l-77 goes to show that he was interested in taking certified copies but was interested in implicating the appellant in false case.
55. Complainant was an educated person and it is not believable that appellant could have demanded bribe only for giving certified copies. More over when he was not given copies he never made any complaint to higher authorities. This witness never objected to the copy of Khasra Girdawari of current year i.e. S.Y. 2033 being given to him on 11-1-77 while he actually required Khasra Grirdawari of S.Y. 2032. These facts go to show that the complainant bed actually not asked the appellant for certified copies but it is case where the appellant was wrongly repoed in.
56. Shiv Kumar is admittedly brother-in-law of complainant. This witness went to ACD Office with complainant. The Dy.S.P. Jagdishsingh PW 8 himself says that he did not regard Shivkumar as an independent witness (cross of Jagdishsingh PW 8 on page 3 at 24th to 26th lines.) This witness shared the design of complainant are posed as prospective purchaser of agricultural lands of complainant. Apart from this Shiv Kumar contradicts, statement of other witnesses in the following manner, which render his testimony highly doubtful.
Shiv Kumar Sita Ram
¼1½ ;g ekywe ugh fd lhrkjke us ¼1½ ,Dth- ih- 2 es ls ,lhMh foHkkx
fjiksZV dgk fy[kh Fkh A ;g es cSBdj fy[kh Fkh A ml le;
ekywe ugh fd og fjiksZV ?kj esjs lkFk f'kodqekj Fkk A
ls fy[kdj yk;k Fkk ;k , lh
Mh vkWfQl es fy[kh A txnh'k flag Mh- ,l- ih-
¼2½ ,l- ih- lkgc ds vkWfQl ls ¼2½ ,Dth- ih- fjiksZV ysdj esjs ikl
lhrkjke o Mh-,l-ih- ckgj fudys ifjoknh ds vykok f'ko dqekj
o Mh-okbZ-,l-ih- ds vkfQl es vk;k Fkk A
x;s Fks eS ckgj gh [kM+k jgk A jes'k pUnz ih-Mcyw- 3
¼3½ okds ls igys eS jes'k pUnz ¼3½ f'ko dqekj esjs lkFk esjs foHkkx
dks ugh tkurk Fkk A vks- ,.M ,e- es dk;Z bl okds
ls igys dj pqdk Fkk A f'ko dqekj
dk HkkbZ MkDVj gS A
57. This witness sets up entirely a new case, when he says that every body was searched before entering the Patwar Bhawan, further when he says that Sita Ram did not tell him any thing about the demand of bribe before going to ACD Office and that he does not know in which department he was working at the time of the trap does not inspire any confidence rather such statement goes to show that the witness is not truthful.
58. Ramesh Chandra (PW 3) had worked in O & M Deptt. in which Shiv Kumar (PW 4) had also worked as apparent from cross-examination of this witness. The version of this witness in the begining of his cross-examination as to how be came to be a witness in this case is as under:
ftl jkst Vªsi gqvk ml jkst eS vodk'k ij Fkk A mlh jkst ds vodk'k ij Fkk A eq>s ;kn ugh fd vodk'k eSus igys jkst fn;k Fkk ;k ugh] vodk'k eSus bl VªIk ds dkj.k ugh fy;k FkkA cfYd eSus vius fuft dk;Z ls fy;k Fkk D;ksfd esjs cPps NksVs Fks vkSj mudh ekrk vFkZkr esjh ifRu xkWo xbZ Fkh bl dkj.k mudh ns[kHkky djus dsk vodk'k fy;k Fkk A esjh ifRu nwljs jskt vk;h Fkh ,d vUtku dkUlVsfcy eq>s feyk Fkk ftldh 'kDy Hkh vkt eS ugh crk ldrk o igpku Hkh ugh ldrk Aogka ij ml jkst njokts ls vkSj Hkh turk vk tk jgh FkhA ml dkUlVsfcy us mu vkus tkus okyks es ls eq>s gh pquk Fkk vkSj fdlh ls mlus dksbZ ckr ugh dh Fkh A eS x;k ml le; ogka ij f'kodqekj o ifjoknh lhrkjke ogh cSBs Fks A f'kodqekj o lhrkjke mu fnuks lfpoky; es gh dk;Z djrs Fks A This witness in his examination in chief at page 1 in 1st to 4th line has stated as under:
lks nl X;kjg cts fnu dh ckr gS] eS xksfoUn th ds n'kZu djus tysch pkSd gksdj tk jgk Fkk Arks , lh Mh ds dkUlVscy eq>s cqykdj , lh Mh es ys x;s A ogka Ikj Mh okbZ ,l ih us crk;k fd ,d Vªsi dsl gS Aftles vkidks xokgh ds fy, pyuk gS rks eSus viuh lgefr ns nh A
59. This conduct of witness Ramesh Chandra though he had taken leave to attend to his kids since his wife had gone out of Jaipur but he readily agreed to go as a witness to the trap and neither go to Govind Daveji's temple nor cared to look-after his infant kids is unbelievable Reference in this connection may be made to AIR 1976 page 91 Raghveer Singh v. State of Punjab where in a very similar situation, the Hon'ble Supreme Court regarded the testimony of witness as partisan. Apart from this he also shared design of the complainant in foisting a fates case on the appellant by posing himself as a purchasers of the complainant's land. At page 2 in first 3 lines of his chief, he has said that the complainant told the Patwari that these persons are purchasers of land thereafter we all went to see the land along with Patwari. Further he had said that since we entered, Patwari had shown all record relating to the land to us. The conduct of this witness show that he was hand-in-gloves with the complainant This witness has also reciled from the statement under Section 161 Cr PC (Ex D 2) where in he has said that he does not remember whether he had given statement marked 'A to B' in Ex.D 2 and has also said that he does not remember whether the appellant had asked the complainant to pay Re. 1.12 as fee for certified copies. The trial Court has altogether failed to consider the above mentioned important fact about the testimony and conduct of this witness. The trial Court has also not taken into account as to why the witness should have posed himself as purchaser of the complainant's land unless he was in collusion with the complainant. The reliance of the testimony of this witness by the trial Court is improper. When the entire testimony of this witness is closely examined it becomes apparent that it was not a chance or co-incidence that the witness had taken leave on the day of trap that he made himself available very near the ACD Officer to be taken as witness to the trap. In fact these circumstances coupled with effect this witness had worked in O & M department with Shiv Kumar who is the brother-in-law of the complainant goes to show that in all probability he had also gone to ACD Office along with the complainant and Shiv Kumar so that he may be taken as a 'Motbir'. The testimony of this witness as such cannot be relied for proving that Rs. 25/-were given to the appellant as bribe or that the appellant accepted Rs. 25/-with consenting mind.
60. It is also pertinent to mention that the trial court has relied on the fact of the sodiumbicarbonate solution turning pink on the hands of appellant being washed in it. In this connection I may say that the trial court has snot considered the following facts and circumstances.
(1) That Madan Singh who applied phenopthaline powder to currency notes was not excluded from trap party which should have done;
(2) There is no evidence that bands of Madan Singh were got washed after he had applied phenopthaline powder to notes;
(3) It is in the evidence of defence witnesses that when Sita Ram wanted to give the appellant Rs. 25/- towards penalty, the appellant had brushed aside the notes by hand. The statements of Shriram and Genda are relevant on this aspect of the case.
61. Shriram and Genda witnesses have also stated that immediately after forcing the notes of Rs. 25/- into pocket of appellant Sitaram caught his band appellant was taken out side where the Constable caught bold his hands. This explains why the appellant was not able to return or through away the currency notes. It is pertinent to mention that Genda and Shriram were respectable persons of the locality and were Sarpanch & Up-Sarpanch respectively. Their presence is admitted by Shiv Kumar and other witnesses. If the appellant bad really taken bribe from complainant who was a local person of Panchayat. Genda and Shriram could not have come forward to support the appellant. The evidence of these witnesses (Shriram and Genda) not only explains the presence or phenopthaline powder on the hand of the accused bus also goes to prove at least by preponderance of probability that Rs. 25/- were forcefully put in the pocket of the appellant and that the complainant had said that he would bring the balance of penalty just now.
62. It is settled law that recovery of notes alone is not sufficient to prove charge under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Act or Section 161 IPC. It is necessary for the prosecution to prove that the accused accepted the money voluntarily or with consenting mind and that the money was not legal remuneration or legal payment. Firstly the prosecution witnesses have not clearly denied that the payment of Rs. 25/- was not on account of penalty as already discussed earlier. Secondly, the demand of Rs. 25/- on 10-1-77 is not at all proved & thirdly the complainant is proved to have strong enmity against appellant, Shiv Kumar is highly interested witness being brother-in-law of complainant and Ramesh Chandra who is a friend of Shiv Kumar is also a partisan witness, On the basis of testimony of these interested witness it cannot be taken as proved that the accused accepted Rs. 25/- with consenting mind. More over, one of the constables Surest) who was present in Patwar Bhawan and was with the complainant and witnesses right from Post Office has not been produced and the two constables Mahaveer Singh and Radhey Shyam who caught hold of accused at Patwar Bhawan have also not been produced and as such the prosecution case suffers from a serious infirmity and adverse inference can be drawn against prosecution from non-production of these witnesses.
63. In these circumstances as held by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in AIR 1975 SC 1432)the use of presumption under Section 4(1) of PC Act cannot be made for convicting the appellant even under Section 161, IPC. The prosecution of law laid down in this case is as under:
Further that not only the story of demand of bribe by appellant from complainant is not proved by event the story of payment is not established beyond reasonable doubt, that being so the rule of presumption engrafted in Section 4(1) cannot be made use of for convicting the appellant.
In the instant case, the prosecution witnesses are highly interested and if objectively seen, total evidence unerringly points out that the appellant became a victim of planned conspiracy hatched by complainant who is a legal draftsman in Secretariate in collusion with his brother-in-law and Ramesh Chandra and the motive for foisting false case on appellant has been amply proved by defence. It is also apparent that even the Investigating Officer's conduct in not examining Shriram and Genda as witnesses is partisan. In these circumstances it cannot be believed on the basis of recovery of notes and statements of interested witnesses that Rs. 25/- were paid as bribe and not as part payment of penalty nor can it believed that the appellant accepted the money with consenting mind specially since demand of bribe is not proved. When the prosecution has not proved these primary ingredients the case of prosecution fails.
64. In view of the foregoing discussion, this appeal succeed hence the same is allowed and judgment dated 11-2-1981 passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted for all the charges levelled against him. Appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled. He need not surrender.