1991 Supreme(Raj) 588
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT AT JAIPUR BENCH
Farooq Hasan, J.
Govind Prasad - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Cr. A. No. 81 of 1980.
Decided On : 5-03-1991
The prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that a public servant demanded or accepted a bribe in order to secure a conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
Headnote:
BRIBERY - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5(1)(D) READ WITH SECTION 5(2) - CONVICTION FOR DEMANDING AND ACCEPTING BRIBE - APPELLANT, A PATWARI, ALLEGEDLY DEMANDED AND ACCEPTED BRIBE FROM COMPLAINANT FOR NOT REPORTING THEFT OF NEEM TREE - TRIAL COURT CONVICTED APPELLANT - HELD, CONVICTION UNSUSTAINABLE - PROSECUTION FAILED TO PROVE EXISTENCE OF NEEM TREE OR THAT APPELLANT HAD ANY MOTIVE TO DEMAND BRIBE - PROSECUTION EVIDENCE LACKED INDEPENDENT CORROBORATION AND WAS NOT WORTHY OF CREDENCE - APPELLANT'S DEFENCE THAT HE RECEIVED MONEY AS REPAYMENT OF LOAN WAS PROBABLE - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE ACT REBUTTED - APPEAL ALLOWED, CONVICTION AND SENTENCE SET ASIDE, APPELLANT ACQUITTED.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a Patwari, was convicted by the trial court for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 200 from the complainant for not reporting the theft of a neem tree. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had demanded the bribe after the complainant had reported the theft of the tree to the police. The appellant denied the allegations and claimed that he had received the money as repayment of a loan.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of the neem tree or that the appellant had any motive to demand a bribe. The court also found that the prosecution evidence lacked independent corroboration and was not worthy of credence. The court further found that the appellant's defence that he received the money as repayment of a loan was probable. The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which provides that possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant is deemed to be illegal gratification, was rebutted by the appellant.
Issues: (1) Whether the prosecution had proved the existence of the neem tree and that the appellant had a motive to demand a bribe? (2) Whether the prosecution evidence was worthy of credence? (3) Whether the appellant's defence was probable? (4) Whether the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, was rebutted by the appellant?
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the existence of the neem tree or that the appellant had any motive to demand a bribe. The court also found that the prosecution evidence lacked independent corroboration and was not worthy of credence. The court further found that the appellant's defence that he received the money as repayment of a loan was probable. The court held that the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, which provides that possession of disproportionate assets by a public servant is deemed to be illegal gratification, was rebutted by the appellant.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him.
JUDGMENT
1. - Govind Prasad (appellant), who was Patwari of Patwar Circle Khandeep, Tehsil Gangapur City District Sawai Madhopur (Rajasthan) at the relevant time, has challenged his conviction & sentence for the offence under Section 5(1) (d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (for brevity, Act). He has been sentenced vide judgment dated 23.1.1988 of the Special Judge (A.C.D. cases), Jaipur, to undergo simple imprisonment for one year & pay a fine of Rs. 200/- (in default, further S.I. for one month).Factual matrix:
2. A written report (Ex. P. 1) was lodged before the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Dy. S.P.), Anti-Corruption Department (A.C.D.), Sawai Madhopur by Mogriya (Pw 1) on 19.5.1984 alleging therein that in the field of his nephew Kalla situated adjacent to his field there was a Neem tree at the common boundary line of their fields and it had dried up, therefore, it was cut down by Kalla. This fact came to the notice of the appellant-Patwari during his inspection of the site and since the tree was public one, he interrogated Kalla who stated that it was cut down by Moogaria. It had also been stated in the report that the neem tree was seized by the appellant (Patwari) and entrusted it to Badri Meena but, Moogariya (PW 1) was called by the appellant who demanded a bribe of Rs. 300/- from him for not reporting the matter to the police. A sum of Rs. 200/- is said to have agreed to be paid by Mogriya to the appellant.
3. The said report (Ex. P. 1) had been presented to Ram Kishore (PW 12) who summoned two witnesses, Pradip Kumar(Pw8)& Rakesh Singh (PW 9) and they were introduced to Mogriya who produced two currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 100/- each before Ram Kishore (PW 12) upon which he put his initials and after demonstration of the use of phenolphthalein powder, the currency notes were treated with the powder and Mogriya was instructed to deliver them to the appellant on demand. The motbir witnesses (supra) were directed to witness the transaction of money and hear the talks between Mogriya & the appellant. Ex. P. 2 memo was prepared.
4. Ram Kishore (PW 12) along with the motbir witnesses, the complainant & the members of the trap party are said to have proceeded to Gangapur City by jeep and reached there in the evening of 19.5.1984. Mogariya (PW 1) was allegedly sent to the appellant who bad not come from Khandeep and therefore, the trap party is said to have stayed during night at Gangapur City. Next day at about 8 a.m. the trap party reached the Railway Station of Ganganpur City. The appellant is said to have alighted from the train and come down, and outside the railway station started talking with rickshaw-pullers where the decoy (PW 1) met him.
5. The prosecution case unfolded is that the appellant then enquired from the decoy for money; that Mogriya (PW 1) took out the tainted currency notes from his pocket and delivered them to the appellant who put them in his bush-shirts pocket and in the meantime, Mogariya (PW 1) gave the instructed signal to the trap party thereby Ram Kishore (PW 12) promptly reached near the appellant introduced himself and then started questioning him about the currency notes worth Rs. 200/-to which the appellant answered that Mogriya had borrowed the said money from him and he had returned the same to him.
6. Thereupon both the hands of the appellants were washed off in the solution of sodium carbonate which turned into pink colour and its liquid was prepared in the bottles (Art. 2&3). Ram Kishore (PW 12) after taking the currency notes out of the pocket of the bush-shirt of the appellant got its numbers tallied with the numbers noted earlier in memo (Ex. P. 2) and the notes were seized vide Ex. P. 3. The pocket of the bush shirt was washed in the aforesaid solution which also turned into pink colour and its liquid was preserved in the bottle Article 1).
7. After observing necessary formalities and usual investigation, and obtaining sanction order for
Click Here to Read the rest of this document
Back
