Honble TIBREWAL, J. – The appellant, who was a Junior Engineer in Rajasthan State Electricity Board, has been convicted by the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Bharatpur u/Ss. 7 & 13 (1) (d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to undergo simple imprisonment for a period of six months and a fine of Rs. 500/- and one years simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under each count respectively. Both the sentences of imprisonment were ordered to run concurrently. In default of payment of fine he was further ordered to undergo simple imprisonment for one and a half months under each count.

(2). Shortly stated, the case of the prosecution is that complainant Pooran Chand (PW 1) made a written report (Ex.P/1) to Shri V.K. Gaur, Dy. Superintendent of Police (for short Dy. S.P.) Anti-Corruption Department, Bharatpur on 15.5.1989, stating therein that for obtaining electric connection he deposited Rs. 108/- on 11.5.1989 but electric connection was not given to him. That on 13.5.1989 he again met with the appellant who demanded Rs. 200/- as bribe for giving electric connec- tion but he did not want to give money for this purpose. The Dy. S.P. suspected the conduct of the complainant as revealed from the talks with him. He, therefore, before laying a trap, wanted to verify the facts. Hence, Head Constable Shri Raghunath was deputed by him to go with the complainant and hear conversation between him and the appellant. He was directed to disclose him as a relative of the complainant. As per programme, Head Constable Raghu Nath went to the bus stand, Deeg at the appointed time and date and waited for the complainant till evening, but he did not turn up. He, therefore, returned back without making verification. The complainant again came to the Dy. S.P. on 22.5.1989 and expressed for his inability to go for verification on 16.5.1989 and told his desire now to go for verification. The Dy. S.P. then, asked constable Prahlad Kumar to go with him for verification of facts. Prahlad Kumar reported on coming back that the appellant was demanding Rs. 150/- for giving connection and it was agreed to be paid to him next day in his office. The prosecution story further goes that on 23.5.1989 the complainant came with currency notes of Rs. 150/- and two ``Motbir witnesses, namely, Kishan Singh and Ashok Kumar were called there from Sales Tax Department. After completing necessary formalities, the trap party started to lay trap at about 11.50 a.m. on 23.5.1989. At the appointed time the accused/appellant was not available in his office at Deeg to accept bribe money. The trap party, then, went to his residence in Krishna Nagar Colony at Bharatpur and it is alleged that currency notes of Rs. 150/- were passed on to him who put them in an open almirah. On getting signal the police party reached at the spot and disclosed their identity. The prosecution case is that Additional S.P., of Police, immediately after reaching there, asked the appellant for bribe money but he denied to have received the same, though the complainant maintained there that currency notes were given to him out side Varandah. The accused again denied to have accepted currency notes when he was again asked by the Additional S.P. It is alleged that from the almirah which was not having doors, currency notes of Rs. 150/- were recovered and seized vide memo Ex. P/3. The accused was also arrested vide Ex. P/4, Siteplan Ex. P/8 was prepared and after necessary formalities and completion of investi- gation, a charge- sheet came to be filed against the appellant on 27.11.1990.

(3). Charges u/Ss. 7 & 13(1) (d) r/w Sec. 13(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act were framed. During trial, prosecution examined 14 witnesses to prove charges against the appellant. In his statement u/S. 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant denied his involvement and examined one witness, namely Devi Singh, in his defence. On completion of trial, the trial Court con

Click Here to Read the rest of this document