AI Structured Summary
Not yet generated for this judgment
Judgment
N.K. Mehrotra, J.—This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 1541988, passed by Special Judge / Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Faizabad convicting and sentencing the appellant under Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act for one year R.I. and a fine of Rs. 100 and under Section 161 IPC for six months R.I.
Heard Sri A.R. Siddiqui for the appellant and learned A.G.A. and perused the records.
The accusedappellant was Head Moharrir in June 1985 in Police Station Hanswar, District Faizabad. He demanded a bribe of Rs. 50 from Gati Ram when Gati Ram went to police station at 7.00 a.m. on 1161985 for lodging a First Information Report. Since Gati Ram did not offer bribe of Rs. 50 as a consideration for lodging the First Information Report, the First Information Report was not lodged, so a complaint was made to District Magistrate who arranged trap.
On 1261985 during trap, the appellant was caught red handed at the time of accepting Rs. 50 as illegal gratification for lodging the First Information Report. All the formalities as required under law were fulfilled and the accusedappellant was arrested on the spot with a note of Rs. 50 which was duly signed by the Trap Inspector. All the formalities were performed in presence of witnesses.
During trial, the accused Dina Nath Shukla was charged under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The accused pleaded for not guilty and pleaded false implication in the case because of enmity. The prosecution examined Chandra Deep Jaiswar (P.W. 1), Noor Mohammad (P.W. 2), Constable Ahmad Hasan (P.W. 3), Constable Deo Narain Dubey (P.W. 4), J.R. Sethi (P.W. 5), Gati Ram (P.W. 6), Karamveer Singh, Senior Superintendent of Police (P.W. 7) and Jagdamba Bux Singh (P.W. 8).
After considering the evidence on record, the learned trial Court found the accused guilty, under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
It is against this judgment of conviction and sentence the accusedappellant has preferred this appeal.
After hearing learned Counsel for the accusedappellant I find that the prosecution case for demand of Rs. 50 by the accusedappellant for lodging First Information Report has not been proved. According to the complainant when he had gone to police station to lodge First Information Report on 1161985 a demand of Rs. 50 was made by the appellant for lodging the First Information Report but according to P.W. 4, Constable Deo Narain Dubey, the accusedappellant Dina Nath Shukla was not on duty since after 2.00 p.m. on 1061985. He was not on duty on 1161985. When according to the prosecution case, itself, the accusedappellant was not on duty at the time when the complainant had gone to lodge First Information Report, essential ingredients for demand of illegal gratification for lodging First Information Report is not found proved. Since demand of bribe is not proved, the accusedappellant cannot be convicted under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act.
In view of above, the charge under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act cannot be said to have been proved by the evidence on record. The appeal is allowed and impugned judgment and order dated 1541988 is hereby set aside. The accusedappellant is acquitted for the charges under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act. The accusedappellant is on bail. He need not surrender.