JAIN, J.—This appeal has been directed against the judgment of the learned Special Judge, Jaipur District, Jaipur dated 25-9-72 by which he convicted and sentenced the appellant Madan Lal as follows :—

(1) Under section 161 IPC to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 50/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for one month, and

(2) Under sub-section (2) read with clause (d) of sub-section (1) of section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, to rigorous imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment whereof, to simple imprisonment for two months.

The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. I have heard arguments and examined the record.

2. The appellant was a Survey Amin in the Settlement Department in circle Amer, District Jaipur at the relevant time. One Kushlaram PW-1 asked him to survey his land and demarcate it into separate holdings for himself and his six brothers. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- as bribe for doing the job. The bargain was settled at Rs. 50/- which also Kushlaram was not prepared to pay. He approached the Anti Corruption Department upon which a trap was laid on 28.12.70 in Nawlakha Bagh, Amer where the land of Kushlaram was situated. He produced five currency notes each of Rs. 10/- before the Deputy Superintendent of police Shri Ram Singh to which phenolphthalein powder was applied. When the accused went to the field of Kushlaram and began his survey, he demanded the amount. Kushlaram then, paid him the five currency notes which the accused placed inside the pocked of his coat. From the field Kushlaram and the witnesses Moolchand, Moti-lal and Ramnarain went to the hotel of Ganesh and took tea. When the accused started from there on bicycle, a pre arranged signal was given by Kushlaram and the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of police came and stopped the accused. He was asked to produce the money pocketed by him, but the accused denied to have accepted any money. Search of his person was taken and from his pocket the aforesaid currency notes were recovered. The hands of the accused were washed and the pink colour of the water showed that his hands had been soiled with the phenolphthalein powder. The pocket of the coat was also washed and the water thereof also turned into pink colour.

3. The plea of the accused was that when he was surveying the field, he was accompanied by Kanhaiyalal D.W. 1 & Kalicharan D.W. 2. Kushlaram wanted him to show six holdings of the field and offered him money which he did not accept and returned the amount and it was how his hands were soiled with the powder. Kushlaram went away. Meanwhile the appellant gave has coat to Kalicharan. Kalicharan went to take tea with the coat. Kushlaram met him there. Kalicharan returned the coat to the accused who put on the same as usual and it was then that the police party arrived and the money was recovered from the pocket of his coat. The substance of the plea therefore, is that the money was planted in his pocket without his knowledge.

4. Kanhaiyalal Amin D.W. 1 has supported the plea of the accused and deposed that Kushlaram offered money to Madan Lal but he refused to accept. His coat was after sometime taken away by Kalicharan. Kalicharan is the Chainman and corroborated that he had taken the coat of Madan Lal and had gone to take tea where Kushlaram met him. Kushlaram took the coat from him saying that the accused needed it. After a little while, the accused also came along and he took the coat from Kushlaram. What had happened subsequently had already been stated above.

5. The learned trial Judge rejected the plea of the accused and upon an examination of the prosecution evidence, came to the conclusion that trap the had succeeded and Rs. 50/- were received by Madan Lal as bribe from Kushlaram for showing favour to him by dividing his field into six holdings. Upon a search being taken, the money was recovered from the pocket of the accused.

6. I have als

Click Here to Read the rest of this document