Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

2. Heard learned counsel for the accused-appellant and the learned Addl. Govt. Advocate.

3. At the relevant time the accused-appellant was the Lekhpal of Village Rajpura and complainant Daula was Harijan and was a resident of the said village.

4. The prosecution case was that the accused-appellant called several months before the date of the trap landless labourers of the village and had noted their names for the purposes of Patta of the land to be given to them, that then 3-4 days before 10-3-81 the accused-appellant came to the village to give patta to those to whom the land was allotted, that Daula complainant enquired from him about the proposed Patta in his favour, whereupon the accused-appellant told him that the land would be given to him only if he pays him a bribe of Rs. 100/-, that on this Daula complainant told him that he had no money to pay but later on he agreed to it and then the accused-appellant told him that he should come to his house in Talbehat with the money on 10-3-1981, that the complainant then went to Mathura Das Litoria in Talbehat and told him about the demand and got a complaint, Ex. Ka-6, scribed from him narrating the facts and praying that the accused-appellant be trapped, that then he went along with Mathura Das Litoria to Jhansi and met the Superintendent of Vigilance and submitted the complaint to him, who endorsed the complaint to Deputy S. B. (Vigilance) Sri Satish Kumar Chaturvedi and Sri Chaturvedi told him that he will come to the house of Mathura Das Litoria along with force, on the next date, that on the next date i.e. 10-3-1981 the complainant happened to meet the accused-appellant Jwala Prasad at the Bus Stand whereupon, the accused-appellant demanded the bribe amount, whereupon the complainant told the accused-appellant that he would bring the money within 2-3 hours, that on this the accused-appellant told him that he was going somewhere out of station and he should come to him with the money on 18-3-1981, that on this the complainant went to the house of Mathura Das Litoria, where the Deputy S. P. Sri Chaturvedi along with others was present, that he told the Dy. S. P. about the conversation he had with the Lekhpal and gave an application Ex. Ka-7, narrating the same and then Sri Chaturvedi went away directing Daula to meet him on 18th of the month at that place, that on 18-3-1981 Dhola complainant reached the house of Mathura Das Litoria, where after about 2-3 hours Dy. S. P. (Vigilance) Sri Chaturvedi along with another Dy. S. P. Sri Balak Ram, an Inspector and two constables came there, that thereafter Daula complainant, as per instructions of Sri Chaturvedi, Dy. S. P., reached the house of Mathura Das on 18-3-1981, that at about 1 or 1.30 p.m. Dy. S. P. Sri Chaturvedi along with another Dy. S. P. Sri Balak Ram, Inspector Lal Singh, two constables, Ram Adhar Pal and Gopal Behari and two public witnesses Munna Lal and Prem Narain, who were taken from the Bus stand, came there, that Daula affirmed the accused-appellant in the presence of all of them and produced a currency note of Rs. 100/- (Ex. 3) which was to be given as bribe to the accused-appellant, that Dy. S. P. Sri Chaturvedi noted down the serial number of the currency note and Constable Ramadhar Pal applied phenophthalein powder on the currency note and then the currency note was returned to Daula for being handed over to the accused appellant as bribe, that the hands of constable Ramadhar Pal and Daula were dipped in sodium carbonate solution, whereupon the solution which was previously colour less, turned into pink, that the solution was put in separate bottles (Exs. I and II) and sealed and memo (Ex. Ka-3) was prepared in respect of the same, that Dy. S. P. Sri Chaturvedi gave necessary instructions to the raiding party that Constable Ramadhar Pal would go along with Daula inside the room of accused-Lekhpal posing himself as Dhola's cousin, while all others would stay outside, that thereafter the raiding party proceeded towards the house of accused Jwala Prasad in Talbehat, that thereafter Daula complainant and Constable Ramadhar Pal went inside the room of the accused-appellant Jwala Prasad, while Dy. S. P. Chaturvedi and others stayed outside, that the accused-appellant was sitting inside the room on the ground scribing something, that the accused-appellant enquired from the complainant Daula about the identity of Constable Ramadhar Pal, that the complainant introduced Constable Ramadhar Pal as his relation and also assured that there was nothing about him which was hidden from him, that thereupon the accused-appellant enquired from Daula complainant if he had brought the money, whereupon Daula complainant replied in the affirmative, that Constable Ramadhar Pal asked the accused-appellant if he had taken any steps for getting the land allotted in the name of Daula complainant whereupon the accused appellant took out a sheet of paper and told him that he would be allotted 3.58 acres of land and his name would be sent, that thereupon Daula complainant handed over the currency note (Ex. 3) to the accused-appellant was took it and put it inside the right hand pocket of his Baniyan, that thereupon Dy. S, P. Sri Chalurvcdi along with others who were seeking and hearing from out side went inside the room, disclosed his identity and made search of the accused-appellant and recovered a currency note Ex. 3 from his pocket in the presence of the witnesses, that he also took in his possession from him a list of persons whom land was to be allotted Ex. 8 with a diary, Fix. IX, that on perusal he found that the number of the currency note, Ex. 3 tallied with the number of the currency note noted earlier by him, that then he dipped the right hand of the accused-appellant and his Baniyan in sodium carbonate solution and the solution turned pink, that then the hands of Daula complainant were also got washed in sodium carbonate solution and the said solution, also turned pink that the washed liquids were put in separate bottles and sealed, that then Dy. S. P. Sri Chaturvedi made a written report, Ex. Ka-5, at the police station and deposited all the recovered articles as also the complaint and the application made by Daula complainant to Superintendent of Police and to him there along with it, that he also lodged the bottles of solutions aforesaid with the police station.

10. Ram Singh (DW 1) did not say that he offered to become a witness of this recovery and also did not say that he was not asked to become a witness of the arrest and recovery. He also did not say that he made any complaint to any authorities that there had been no recovery of bribe money from the accused-appellant but a false case was fastened upon him.

11. It is .significant to note that the defence suggestion to Trap Officer Chaturvedi (PW. 1) in his cross-examination was that Ram Singh (DW 1) along with Sukhpal, Lekhpal, were present inside that room where the accused-appellant was at that time and where, as per prosecution case, the demand and acceptance of bribe money by the accused- appellant took place. If they were present inside that room it ruled out any demand and acceptance of bribe by the accused appellant in that room. However, Ram Singh (D.W. 1) in his testimony did not make any such claim that he was inside the room in which the accused-appellant was sitting on the floor and doing his Likhapdhi. He only claimed that he was in the outside Verandah. It was consistant with the version including the demand and acceptance of bribe inside the room of the accused-appellant. He did not say that complainant Daula and witness Constable Ramadhar Pal did not enter inside the room where the accused-appellant was doing Ljkhapadhi sitting on the floor. There was a suggestion in his cross-examination that he was not a witness of payment of bribe money to the accused-appellant (because he arrived there subsequently) at the time of arrest and recovery). He made a denial to the suggestion that he had not seen the occurrence of payment of bribe to the accused-appellant. The suggestion of the prosecution to him was that he is giving a false statement because he keeps good relations with Lckhpals. But from his statement itself it is obvious that his denial is not true. He happened to be the Village Pradhan of village Sunet a. He himself said that he used to visit Sukhpal off and on. On his own saying Sukhpal, Lekhpal and Jwala Prasad accused-appellant lived jointly in one and the same room. As such it is not surprising that on the date of occurrence he rushed to the spot seeing some trouble to the accused-appellant and at the trial came forward as a defence witness. Considering all the circumstances his statement could not help the defence case.

27. It may be that the village Lekhpal himself did not have any authority as such to allot any Gaon Sabha land in favour of any villager. The land Management Committee alone could admit any person to certain land of the Gaon Sabha under Sections 195 and 197 of the U.P.Z.A. & L.R. Act in that the order of reference under Section 198 of the Act was also to be followed and then the procedure under Rules 173 to 176 of the Rules framed under the Act was also to be followed. But the fact remains that the Lekhpal is Secretary of the Land Management Committee and he has a vital role to play in the functioning of the Land Management Committee. Very often he is the only person of the Gaon Sabha who is conversant with the procedure and the rules and he has opportunity to oblige a person by placing or suppressing material before or from the Land Management Committee in the manner that the land could be allotted to him. It is common knowledge that the landless persons arc usually illiterate and they have to depend on the village Lekhpal, if they want their names entered in the list and get the application for allotment of land prepared to secure allotment of land in their favour. They are bound to have an impression in their mind that the Lekhpal is the pivot in the matter and he alone could be instrumental in the allotment of land of the Land Management Committee. It is equally well known that more often than not the rules of the procedure prescribed for the allotment of land by the Land Management Committee are flouted and allotments are made. Therefore, it cannot be said that it was unlikely that the accused-appellant could demand the bribe for the allotment of land because he had no legal authority to do so.

28. It has been admitted by Ram Singh (DW 1), who happened to be a Village Pradhan, and so he was conversant with the procedure of the allotment in respect of the Gaon Sabha land by the Land Management Committee that the Lekhpal has a leading hand in getting the Pattas accepted "PATTE SWEEKAR KARANE MEIN LEKHPAL KA PRAMUKH HAATH RAHTA HAI".

29. Now taking an over all view of the evidence on record and the circumstances and probabilities inherent in the situation it can safely be inferred that prosecution has succeeded in establishing beyond doubt the acceptance of the amount of Rs. 100/- as gratification by the accused-appellant at the date, time and place as claimed by the prosecution. This gives rise to the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 that the accused-appellant obtained and accepted from the complainant Daula the gratification of Rs. 100/- as a motive for getting the land allotted to him from the Land Management Committee. This presumption is, of course, a presumption which may be rebutted by the accused. The presumption may be rebutted by defence evidence or by the circumstances elicited from the prosecution witnesses as a result of cross-examination or otherwise, and this burden may stand discharged if the evidence and material brought on record in its totality renders the existence of the fact presumed improbable. In the present case the total failure of the accused to discharge this burden is evident.