G.M. LODHA, J.—This is a typical case of "trap within a trap"

2. The appeal is directed against the judgment of Special Judge. Jaipur City dated 29th November, 1971 convicting the accused appellant Tej Singh under Section 161 I.P.C. and section 5 (1) (d) read with section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for accepting bribe of Rs.20/- from a railway employee Phool Singh. He has been sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- on each count.

3. The Speciel Judge acquitted Tejsingh under Sec. 5(1)(a) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947 for the charge that he was habitual in accepting bribe from the railway employees, 15 instances of which were made subject matter of the charge.

4. An interesting feature of this case is that the prosecution story commences as well as ands with the star witness Phool Singh P.W. 1 who happens to be a railway employee working under accused Tej Singh and has been proved to be a companion of the accused Tej Singh in the alleged vice of drinking liquor of and on. In other words both the complainant who invited Special Police Establishment Officers for this trap and the accused who had to face this prosecution and conviction on the basis of the trap, planted by his own companion, are drunkards. This aspect of the case shall be dealt with at later stage in details.

5. The prosecation story in short is that P.W. 1 Phool Singh, a Khalasi in Station Masters Officer Gangapur City went to Jaipur and submitted an application Ex.P.l to the Superintendent of Police, Special police Establishment, Jaipur that he was working under the accused who was Correspondence Clerk in the office of Station Master, Gangapur City. Phool Singh alleged that Tej Singh was a corrupt official and a drunkard as he is used to excessive drinking and he is habitual of accepting bribe of Rs. 10/-to 15/-from all casual labourers (non approved candidates) for retaining them in service. Phool Singh made a grievance that he was also being compelld to pay Rs. 20/-for continuing in service, being arrears of bribe for April and May, 1967, failing which he was threatened to be chucked off from service. Phool Singh volunteered to get Tej Singh arrested and caught re-handed in a trap.

6. It is alleged that on this the Superintendent of Police direated Shir Mahendrasingh and Shir P.D. Ajmera to lay a trap but somehow the accused become conciseds and refused to become a victim of the trap. As the accused did not accept the bribe, the trap could not succeed at the instance of Mahendra Singh and P.D. Ajmera.

7. However, Phool Singh again approached the Superintendent of Police on 13.6.1967 and in the second time Mr. P.N. Shukla and Mr. Karansingh were deputed to organise a trap. In pursuance of it, they reached the Dak Bungalow of Gangapur city on 14.6.67 in the night. On 14-6-67 Phool Singh moved another application Ex.P.2 and volunteered that Tej Singh be arrested in a trap. The police party called Bajrang Lal and Shiv Pratap to become trap witnesses. It is said that the accused did not attend office on 15-6-67 as he indulged in excessive drinks of liquor and there fore, remained lying in bed at his house. Neither the police party nor Shri Phool Singh wanted to leave the matter there having failed twice but continued their efforts on 16-6-67, Phoolsingh met the Police Officers at Dak Bungalow at 9 A.M. on 16-6-67, two notes of Rs. 10/- each were delivered to him after which application of Phenol-phthalein ponder to them. An important feature of this case would assume great importance when I discuss the evidence later on, was that since Phool Singh was repeatedly trying to get Tej Singh arrested in the trap, the police authorities called Bajrang Lal to remain with him through out as an independent witness during the trap and Bajrang Lal was instructed to follow Shri Phool Singh to hear conversation between Phool Singh and Tej Singh and watch the passing over of the tainted notes to Tej Singh and then gi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document