SHEEMA ALI KHAN, J.:–The appellant has been found guilty and convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under Sections 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year for each of the offences and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-.

2. The prosecution case is based on the written complaint filed before the Commandant of B.M.P.-6, Muzaffarpur by Tejan Singh (PW 3) in which it has been stated that while the appellant was posted as Bodyguard of the D.I.G, Muzaffarpur, he had taken Rs. 8,000/- from his nephew, Vijay Singh and had promised to get him a job as a Havildar. When the appellant failed to secure a job for his nephew, his nephew demanded back the money, whereupon it is said that the appellant told him that he had already paid the money to the D.I.G., Muzaffarpur. However, he had promised to return the money in installments. The appellant had supposedly paid a sum of Rs. 200/- to Vijay Singh. Later on, he refused to make any other payment. It is also said that a Panchayat was held to resolve the matter between them which however, was not successful. On the basis of the aforesaid written report, the matter was sent to the police where a case was registered, numbered as Sadar (Mithanpura) Police Station Case No. 123 of 1987 dated 08.07.1987.

3. The prosecution has examined eight witnesses in support of its case. This Court will first consider the evidence of PW 3 Tejan Singh, who is the informant of this case. According to PW 3, the money was not paid in front of him. He does not remember the year when the money was paid and further states that there is no witness to the demand of money. He says that he was pressurized by his nephew to file a case. He also talks of an affidavit being filed before the District Magistrate which has been marked as Exhibit-X with objection. It is an unsigned affidavit on behalf of Tejan Singh accepting the fact that no Panchayat was held to resolve the dispute between Vijay Singh and the appellant. On the other hand, it is the case of the prosecution and PW 3 in his examination-in-chief that a Panchayat was held in presence of PW 1, however PW 1 denied being part of any Panchayat proceedings. Therefore, the evidence of PW 3 is very weak because he was neither witness to the demand of money nor was the money handed over in his presence and last but not the least, his nephew had never spoken to the appellant making a request to return the said amount in presence of the informant.

4. PW 4 Vijay Singh is the person on whose behest the said complaint was filed. While examining PW 4, a defence has been raised on behalf of the appellant that PW 4 used to visit the house of a lady which is 10-15 houses away towards west from the house of PW 4. He states that the appellant also used to visit the same lady of and on. It has been indirectly suggested that there seems to be some dispute and jealousy between the two, i.e. Vijay Singh and the appellant. According to PW 4, the said amount was demanded at Muzaffarpur and he paid the said amount at Muzaffarpur. Surprisingly, while making the payment, he did not consult his uncle who was also a Constable in the Police Force and was well known to the appellant. According to PW 4, when he met the appellant, he told him to return back Rs. 8,000/- to him as the appellant had failed to secure him a job as a Constable. According to this witness, he had taken money from his father and brother who works in the Electricity Department. These two persons have not been examined to support the fact that they had given money to Vijay Singh. PW 4 admits that he has not informed the Police or given information to anybody else regarding the demand by the appellant and non-payment of Rs. 8,000/- by him. According to this witness, no Panchayat took place and the appellant had also returned Rs. 200/- to him. Later, in his cross-examination, he has tried to make out a case that a Panchayat was held but he did no

Click Here to Read the rest of this document