MODI, J.—Accused Ganpat Singh has been convicted of an offence under sec. I.P.C. and sec. 6(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, and sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 100/-and in default of payment of fine to a further rigorous imprisonment for a period of three monts, by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur by his judgment dated the 31st August, 1964. He now appeals.

2. The case for the prosecution may shortly be stated as follows. The accused Ganpat Singh was Head Constable in charge of the police out post Asalpur within the jurisdiction of police station Phulera. On the 30th September, 1961, there was a quarrel between Nana P. W. 2 son of Bhima D. W. on the one side and Lalaram P. W. 6 on the other. Both Nanu and Lalaram are residents of Guda Berisal Singh. On the 1st October, 1961, at 12 mid-day, Bhima and his son Tanu filed a report Ex. P. 8 at the police outpost Asalpur in which it was complained that there was a quarrel between Nanuda and Ladhuram as a result of the formers cattle trespassing into the latters field during the course of which Lalaram struck Nanuda with a fist on his forehead and thereby caused him an injury on that part of his body, which was of a simple nature. The accused, it is alleged, then sent for Lalaram through D. W. Guman Singh, a police constable, at Asalpur, and when Laluram arrived at the police outpots at about 11 A. M., the accused abused him and also beat him with a Danda, held out a threat to him that he would be sent to jail. It may be pointed out at this place that Laluram had also made a report Ex. P. 6 complaining that Nanduas cattle had trespassed into his field and verbal altercation arose between them during the course of which Nanuda had beaten his brother Moolas son with a Lathi. This report was registered at 1 P. M. on the 1st. After both these reports were recorded in the daily Roznamcha, the accused came to the conclusion that the offence reported fell under sec. 323 I.P.C, and therefore, the parties should seek their remedy in the competent court. The thumb marks of both Nanuda and Lalaram were taken on the respective entries in the Roznamcha. Be that as it may, the accused is then alleged to have demanded a bribe of Rs. 200/-from Lalaram. The deal was settled, however, for a sum of Rs. 80/- only. Lala Ram paid him Rs. 20/- which he had with himself and he took a further sum of Rs. 20/- from his brother Moola who had also followed to the outpost after his brother. As for the balance of Rs. 40/-, he promised to pay it after one or two days when he would have arranged for the same. Lalurams version further is that he had been detained at the police outpost by the accused until about 4-30 on the 1st and then allowed to go. After he and his brother had gone out of the police outpost, they met Surajmal P. W. 10, Sarpanch of village Boraj and related the whole story to him. Surajmal advised him not to pay any bribe to accused and instead asked him to accompany him to Jaipur where it was settled they would lodge a complaint before the Anti Corruption Department.

3. The story further is that Surajmal wrote out the report Ex. P. 6 addressed to the Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Jaipur, in which it was stated that there was a quarrel between Nanuda and Laluram on the 30th September, 1961, and both parties had made their reports at the police chowki. And thereafter on the 1st October, 1961, constable Guman Singh went to his house to call him at about 9 A. M. and abusively asked him to accompany him to the police Chowki. Thereafter he went to the Chowki where Ganpat Singh accused and P. W. 9 Ghisu Singh were sitting. Thereafter he was abused and threatened and they said that he would have to go to jail for a period of seven years. Lalaram then inquired whether they would be able to save him. Thereupon they said that he will have to pay Rs. 200/. Then Lalaram and his brother made entreaties for the reduction of the amount

Click Here to Read the rest of this document