Judgement

KHANNA, J.:- This judgement would dispose of criminal appeal No. 36 of 1969 Bhagat Ram v. State of Rajasthan and criminal appeal No. 202 of 1970 State of Rajasthan v. Ram Swaroop. Both the appeals have been filed on certificate granted by the Rajasthan High Court.

2. Bhagat Ram during the year 1962 was posted as circle inspector of police at Ganganagar. Ancestral village of Bhagat Ram is Mehna in Tehsil Moga, District Ferozepur Ram Swaroop also belongs to that village. Both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were tried in the Court of special judge. Ganganagar for offences under Section 120B IPC for conspiring to extort bribe of Rs. 2,000 from PW 1 Niranjan Dass of Moga. Charges were also framed against Bhagat Ram for offences under section 161, 218, 347 and 389 Indian Penal Code as also S. 5 (1) (a) read with section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. Additional charge under section 165A Indian Penal Code was framed against Ram Swaroop. Both Bhagat Ram and Ram Swaroop were acquitted by the special judge, Ganganagar in respect of all the charges. The State of Rajasthan filed an appeal against the acquittal of the two accused. The appeal was heard by a Division Bench consisting of Tyagi and Lodha, JJ. The Division Bench dismissed the said appeal against acquittal of Ram Swaroop. The appeal of the State against Bhagat Ram in so far as it related to his acquittal for offences under section 347, 218, 389 and 120B IPC was also dismissed. There was, however, a difference of opinion between the two learned judges on the point as to whether the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under section 161, IPC and S. 5 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act should be maintained. According to Tyagi, J., the case against Bhagat Ram for the above mentioned two offences had not been proved and the State appeal in that respect also was liable to be dismissed. As against that Lodha, J. took the view that Bhagat Ram was guilty of offences under section 161 Indian Penal Code and section 5 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act. He accordingly passed an order for the conviction of Bhagat Ram for the above mentioned two offences.

3. In view of the difference between the two judges regarding the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under Section 161, IPC and S. 5 (1) (a) of Prevention of Corruption Act, the case was placed under Sec. 429 of the Code of Criminal Procedure before Jagat Narayan, J. came to the conclusion that the material on record showed that Ram Swaroop and Bhagat Ram had entered into an agreement to extort bribe from Niranjan Dass and, as such, were guilty of an offence under section 120A punishable under section 120B of Indian Penal Code. The learned judge, however, felt that in view of the decision of the Dicision Bench, he could not set aside the acquittal of Ram Swaroop. As regards Bhagat Ram, the learned judge came to the conclusion that he could set aside the acquittal of Bhagat Ram for offences under sections 120B, 218 and 347 IPC. Bhagat Ram was found guilty by Jagat Narayan , J. of the offences under sections 120B, 161, 218 and 347 IPC. For the offence under section 161 IPC, Bhagat Ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 /- or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. For the offences under sections 218 and 347 IPC, Bhagat Ram was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of one year on each count. These sentences were ordered to run concurrently with the sentence imposed under section 161 IPC. No sentence was awarded for the offence under section 120B IPC. Bhagat Ram has filed criminal appeal No. 36 of 1969 against his conviction and sentence, while the State of Rajasthan has filed appeal No. 202 of 1970 against the acquittal of Ram Swaroop.

4. The prosecution case is that a case under sections 408 and 420 IPC was registered on June 14, 1962 at police station Ganganagar on a report made by the general man