Ganesh Prasad Singh v. State Of Bihar — 1995 DIGILAW 467 (PAT)

Judgment J.P.Singh, J. 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment and order, dated 21st January, 1989, passed in Special Case No.7 of 1985. by Shri B. K. Pandey, Special Judge (Vigilance), North Bihar, Patna, whereby and where under he has convicted the appellant under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. The prosecution case in brief is that on 7th August 1985, Vijay Kumar (PW 1) gave a written report to the I. G. Vigilance Department, Patna, stating inter alia that the appellant who was an Amin in the Consolidation Office, Runi Saidpur (Sitamarhi), had demanded Rs. 100 for making of entry of his fathers name in the revenue-record. On the basis of that report Vigilance Case No. 15 of 1985 was instituted. 3. It appears that in those days Chakbandi operation was going on in the village. Some land was purchased by the father of the informant and later he had applied for entry of the name of the purchaser in the record. The informant was served with a notice to appear in the office along with the vendor on 24-7-1985 and when they went there it was alleged that their signatures were obtained on a blank order-sheet but the informant could not get information regarding the entry of his fathers name. Later on it is stated that when he contacted the appellant, he told him that unless a sum of Rs. 100 paid to him by way of illegal gratification his work would not be done and this led to filing of a written report to the officer concerned as aforesaid. On 12-8-1985 Lakshmi Narayan Singh (PW 5), watcher in the vigilance department contacted the informant and the appellant had also come there on that day. It is said that on the request of the informant all of them went to the tea stall where the appellant was said to have reminded the informant about the payment of the money. It is said that on the request of the informant the appellant agreed to do his work on payment of Rs. 75 only. It is also alleged that since the vigilance department did not contact the informant he latter went to the house of the appellant on 14-8-1985 and paid sum of Rs. 50. It is said that on the request of the informant the appellant agreed to do his work on payment of Rs. 75 only. It is also alleged that since the vigilance department did not contact the informant he latter went to the house of the appellant on 14-8-1985 and paid sum of Rs. 50. The informant thereafter again contacted the vigilance department and reported about the entire incident it is stated that on 17-9-1985 the informant met the appellant and next day was fixed for payment of the remaining amount. This was also informed to the vigilance department. 4. The prosecution case further was that a raiding party was organised consisting of police officers and an Executive Magistrate (PW 6) who went to village Runisaidpur on 18-9-1985 and stayed at the inspection Bungalow. On the request of the Deputy Superintendent of Police the Executive Magistrate gave five currency notes each of Rs. 5 which was given to the informant for handing over to the appellant. According to the prosecution version, the watcher Lakshmi Narain Singh was instructed to accompany the informant with a direction that soon after the payment of money he would give signal by nodding his head. After half an hour the appellant came there and demanded his balance amount and they went to a tea stall where the money was paid. On being signalled by watcher the raiding party arrived and in presence of independent witnesses, namely, Bhola Bhandari (PW 4), Saroj Kumar (PW 8) and Lal Bahadur Singh (PW 18). On search of the appellant a sum of Rs. 25 was recovered from the left pocket of the Kurta of the appellant. A seizure list was prepared and the appellant was taken into custody. After an enquiry and investigation the police submitted charge-sheet. 5. The defence of the appellant, as it appears from the record is that the informant claiming himself to be a leader, used to force him to do illegal work but as he had never obliged him he (informant) had conceived serious grievance against him. Further defence was that the appellant was only an ordinary Amin whose work was to measure the land and submit a report, it was for the Circle Officer to pass necessary order with which the appellant has nothing to do. Further defence was that the appellant was only an ordinary Amin whose work was to measure the land and submit a report, it was for the Circle Officer to pass necessary order with which the appellant has nothing to do. Further defence was that the order of entry of the name of the father of the informant was already made on 24-7 -1,985 and it was accordingly recorded on the following day and hence there was no occasion for the appellant to approach the informant for demanding illegal gratification for getting his work done nor the appellant had demanded any illegal money from the informant The recovery of Rs. 25 in five currency notes each of Rs. 5 has been denied as also the drawing up of the seizure list at the spot. 6. The prosecution in support of its case examined as many as 18 witnesses; PW 2, watcher, PW 9, Inspector of Police (Vigilance Deptt), PW 10, Inspector of Police, PW 11 Jawahar Lal A.S.I. (Vigilance Deptt.), PW 12, S.I of Police (Vigilance Deptt.), PW 13, (a watcher in the vigilance department), PW 14, watcher, PW 17, watcher, PW 18, AS.I. (Vigilance Deptt) have simply produced shirt of the appellant. PW 16, Sub-Inspector (Vigilance Department) claimed to have seized the shirt PW 1 is the informant and PW 5, Lakshmi Narain Singh is the watcher who had claimed to have accompanied the informant at the time of the alleged payment. The Investigating Officer is PW 15 and PW 6 is a Magistrate. They had accompanied the raiding party and claimed to have given five currency notes each of Rs. 5 PWs 4 and 8 are independent witnesses who are said to have been present at the time of seizure but they have not supported the prosecution case. On this point PW 3, Inspector Vigilance Department is a witness of preparation of seizure list and PW 7 is a sanctioning authority. 7. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant has vehemently submitted that nature of the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to substantiate the charge against the appellant. In this connection he has referred to the relevant witnesses. According to the learned counsel, PW 6, an Addl. District Magistrate in clear terms has admitted that before the search of the appellant no search of the persons present there Was made. In this connection he has referred to the relevant witnesses. According to the learned counsel, PW 6, an Addl. District Magistrate in clear terms has admitted that before the search of the appellant no search of the persons present there Was made. It thus appears that the mandatory provision was not complied with The important witnesses have substantially supported the version of the appellant that his duty was to measure the land and submit report and the orders of the Consolidation Officer are complied with which are normally done by the Bench Clerk of the concerned officer. In this connection learned counsel has also submitted that the allegation of the informant that the major part of the alleged amount L e. Rs. 50 was paid to the appellant is not supported by any witnesses. As a matter of fact, PW 1 admitted that nobody had seen him paying that amount. In course of argument learned counsel had referred to the contradictions made by two witnesses i.e. the informant and the watcher. Similarly he had referred to the statement of PWs 4 and 8. Others witnesses, according to learned counsel clearly state that no search was made in their presence and that five currency notes, each of Rs. 5 were already there before they arrived. Apart from this it has been raised by the learned defence counsel that if the evidence of all the witnesses is read as a whole it will appear that there is no satisfactory evidence on the point of alleged recovery of the notes on which the Magistrate was said to have put his initial. 8. On the other hand learned counsel for the State has submitted that there was no motive for the responsible officers to implicate the appellant falsely. So far as the contradictions were concerned, the stand of the State counsel is that the contradictions are not vital so as to reject their testimony. In substance his argument is that a sum of Rs. 25 which was taken by the appellant by way of bribe for doing the work of the informant has been proved. 9. It is an admitted position that the payment of Rs. 50 by way of bribe to the appellant as alleged on the first day by the informant has not been established. As a matter of fact, this has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. 9. It is an admitted position that the payment of Rs. 50 by way of bribe to the appellant as alleged on the first day by the informant has not been established. As a matter of fact, this has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the State. The evidence on record further shows that the duty of the appellant was only to measure the land and submit report. It was for the circle officer to examine the reports and pass appropriate order on the basis of which, as per his orders, entries are made. Therefore, argument raised on behalf of the appellant that in the matter of passing of orders relating to entry in favour or against the appellant of cases, the appellant had no hand. In such a situation the charge against the appellant that he was demanding money to get favourable order in the matter of entry of the name of the informants father can be brushed aside. It is admitted that already an entry in favour of the father of the informant relating to entry of his name was made on 25-7-1985 on the basis of the order passed by the competent authority. In this back ground the allegation of the informant that first installment of money, i.e. Rs. 50 was made on 14-8-1985 privately to the appellant does not hold good as much before that date the entry was made. So far as the payment of balance amount of Rs. 25 on 18-9-1985 is concerned, the contention of the defence is that there was no necessity for making any further payment in any forum as an entry was already made long ago in the name of the father of the informant That cannot be outright rejected. There is no case that the appellant was custodian of records and that he was deliberately not showing the record or disclosing the truth in the matter of claim of the informant relating to the entry of the fathers name on the record. It is known to all that Consolidation Officer is a court and there is provision for obtaining information of the order by way of information slip or by obtaining the certified copy of the order. Had the appellant been a Bench Clerk of the Consolidation Officer it could have been said that he was quite competent to inform about the order passed. Had the appellant been a Bench Clerk of the Consolidation Officer it could have been said that he was quite competent to inform about the order passed. There is no evidence that the informant had approached the officer to know the result of his application who in the circumstances was the only competent person to say so. It is also not known nor it is clear from the evidence as to why the informant approached an Amin who had nothing to do with the order passed by the Consolidation Officer. 10. Be that as it may, regard being paid in view of the facts and circumstances of the case and in view of the discussions made above it is held that the charges against the appellant has not been proved beyond all shadow of reasonable doubts and, as such the appellant is at least entitled to benefit of doubt. In the result, the appellant is acquitted of the charges. He is released from the bail bonds. The appeal is allowed.