Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

34- Even there was no purpose or basis for the demand and acceptance of the bribe by the appellant from the complainant. As already mentioned it is alleged that the said bribe was being demanded for getting the mutation with respect to the land purchased by the brother of the complainant sanctioned. PW10 Mahender Singh, Tehsildar has stated in the cross-examination that mutation is entered by the Patwari and is sanctioned by the Circle Revenue Officer. This very fact/procedure has been admitted by PW14 Inspector Kanwar Singh, the Investigating Officer in the cross-examination. So, the function of the appellant was only to enter the mutation. During the investigation of the case, the Investigating Officer has taken into possession the copies of mutation No.2714 i.e. the disputed mutation which are Ex.P15, P16 and Ex.P19. Ex.P15 and Ex.P16 are the copies of Parat Patwar whereas Ex.P19 is the copy of Parat Sarkar. These documents show that appellant Jai Narain Patwari has already entered the mutation on 02.11.2006. So, Jai Narain has already done the job on 02.11.2006. The callous attitude of the Investigating Officer is evident from his admissions in the cross- examination that he did not verify as to whether the accused has entered the mutation or not. He also admitted that he did not verify from the concerned Circle Revenue Officer, Tehsildar and other Revenue Officer with respect to the sanctioning of the mutation. It was the duty of the Investigating Officer to verify the truthfulness of allegations mentioned in the application Ex.P24 before arranging the trap. But he did not verify these facts even after the trap.