Honble MATHUR, J.–This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 6.8.1981 passed by the learned Special Judge Anti-Corruption Cases, Jodhpur convicting the appellant of offence under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 sentencing him to undergo 1 year R.I and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo 1 month S.I.

(2). The prosecution case is that the complainant PW/1 Udaram had purchased 8 Bigha and 6 Biswa of land in village Manglana, Tehsil Parbatsar Distt. Nagour vide a sale deed dated 21.01.1975 for a sum of Rs. 1500/-. He approached to appellant Kesaram Patwari of the area for mutation of the land in his name. The accused appellant received the sale deed Ex. P/4 and demanded sum of Rs. 100/-for the favour. The complainant expressed his inability to arrange the fund on account of poverty. The accused told him that he may pay the said amount after Dipawali during the period from 5th Nov. to 10.11.1975. The complainant was not interested in paying the bribe as such he decided to approach the Anti Corruption Department. Therefore, on 7.11.1975 he alongwith PW/2 Heeraram and PW/3 Chitarmal approached to PW/5 Himmat Singh the Dy. Superintendent of Anti Corruption Department. The Deputy Superintendent of Police after receiving the complaint arranged a trap. Accordingly currency notes of Rs. 100/-were initialled by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Phenol Pathelin Powder was applied thereon. A Panchnama was prepared entering number of the tainted currency notes. As per plan, the tainted currency notes were given by the complainant Udaram to the accused. On receiving the signal, the trap party made search of the person of the accused and recovered the tainted currency notes. The necessary formalities were completed on the spot. After usual investigation, Police laid chargesheet against the appellant for the aforesaid offence.

(3). The appellant was charged for offence under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. He pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. The prosecution in support of the case examined five witnesses and produced number of documents. The accused in his statement under Sec. 313 Cr. P.C. stated that on 20.10.1975 he had gone to Parbatsar for depositing the Government recoveries. He returned at about 8 p.m. by bus. When he was preparing meal, at about 8.30 p.m. Lalaram brother of the accused appellant came to him and said that he will stay with him in the night. He also took food with him. After taking food they spent some time in talking. In the morning at about 6 a.m. he went to the Patwar House and he found door closed from the outside. Lalaram was not in the Patwar House. Some how he got the door opened. He also opened the almira and found that Rs. 900/-were missing. He sent a man for Lalaram and Durga Singh. He told them about theft of Rs. 900/-. Rameshchandra, Head Master of the school was also there. He told Lalaram that he will lodge a complaint before the Police against him for the theft of Rs. 900/. After interrogation at some length Lalaram confessed that he had committed theft of Rs. 900/-and agreed to return the entire amount. Accordingly he returned Rs. 500/-on the spot and he promised that rest of Rs. 400/-shall be paid on the next day. However, on next day, the complainant Udaram, brother of Lal Ram paid Rs. 300/-and promised to pay rest of Rs. 100/-within 2 to 4 days. But Udaram did not return to pay sum of Rs. 100/-. On 8.11.1975 Udaram paid Rs. 100/-against the amount due of theft. On asking he produced currency notes of Rs. 100/-before the Dy. S.P. He denied the fact of receiving said amount as a bribe. He explained to the Sy. S.P. that he had received Rs. 100/-against the theft amount of Lalaram. He examined DW/1 Gordhanram, DW/2 Durga Singh and DW/3 Rameshchandra in support of his case. The learned Judge held the appellant guilty of offence under Sec. 161 I.P.C. and 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act a

Click Here to Read the rest of this document