Research › Search › Judgment

Uttarakhand High Court · body

2005 DIGILAW 310 (UTT)

Pradeep Kumar v. State of Uttaranchal

2005-07-29

J.C.S.RAWAT

body2005
Judgment – This is a Criminal Appeal against the judgment and order dated 5-5-1983 passed by the II Additional Sessions Judge, Nainital in S.T. No.2 of 1982 State Vs. Pradeep Kumar by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted and sentenced the appellant under sections 161 I.P.C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of three years under Section 161 I.P.C. and to under go rigorous imprisonment for a period of five years and to pay a fine of Rs. 3000/- under Section 5 (l)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. In case of default in payment of fine the appellant was ordered to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the .complainant Agaz Mohd. Khan P W 1' was a contractor in the Civil Construction Bareilly Sub Division, Behgul Dam. He had taken a contract of plain cutting on the said Dam. In this contract he was required to put 12000 cubic metre of earth but on the instructions of the appellant who was a Junior Engineer in the Civil Construction Bareilly Sub Division he put14,000 cubic metre of earth. He was paid the amount of two running bills for Rs. 86,000/- and only the final bill remained to be prepared by the appellant. When the complainant met the accused for the preparation of his final bill, the latter demanded an illegal gratification of Rs. 18,000/-. He demanded that Rs. 3000/- be paid to him in advance and the remaining amount of Rs. 15,000/- be paid to him after the final bill was paid to the complainant. The complainant assured to pay him Rs. 3000/- as illegal gratification on 12-7-1980 and made a written report of this fact to the Superintendent of Police Vigilance Department, Bareilly, on 11-7-1980. In this report the complainant had mentioned the number of the currency notes, which he was to handover to the appellant on 12-7-1980 as illegal gratification. This report was then forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance G.L. Verma (PW4) with the directions that he would lead a trap with his party. Dy. S.P. Sri Verma then discussed the matter with the complainant Agaz Mohd. This report was then forwarded to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Vigilance G.L. Verma (PW4) with the directions that he would lead a trap with his party. Dy. S.P. Sri Verma then discussed the matter with the complainant Agaz Mohd. Khan and Instructed him to meet him on 12-71980 near the Mandl Sammltti, Sitarganj, at 2.30 P.M. On 12-7-1980, he accompanied by Vigilance Inspector Kartar Singh, Gaya Lal and Dayal Tewari, went on the staff car to Mandi Sammitti, Sitarganj. There he instructed the Inspector to procure public witnesses, namely Ashraf Hussain, Bandu and Rajjan Shah. Meanwhile, the complainant also reached that place. Sh. Verma then compared the numbers of the currency notes with the numbers mentioned In the complaint of Agaz Mohd Khan dated 7-8-1980. Agaz Mohd. Khan Informed him that these notes were to be handed over as illegal gratification to the appellant the same day at 4 P.M. in Anpurna Restaurant, Sitarganj. Sh. Verma then smeared phenolphthalein powder on these currency notes and returned them to the complainant. Thereafter, he took a glass of water and added sodium carbonate powder In it. He took a sample of this mixture in a separate phial (Ex. l) and sealed it. In the remaining mixture he got the hand of the complainant washed with the result that the colour of this mixture became pink. A part of this pink mixture was sealed in a separate phial marked Ex. II. Thereafter he explained the process to the witnesses and prepared a memo (Ex.Ka.2) of these proceedings. 3. Sri Verma accompanied by the Vigilance Inspectors and the Public witnesses, went and sat inside the restaurant. At about 4.15 P.M. the appellant was seen coming from the side of Nanakmata Dam on a motorcycle. The complainant stopped him in front of the restaurant and asked him to come inside the restaurant for a cup of tea. He and the appellant then came inside and sat on a table towards the counter and the cabin. The complainant took out the currency notes and handed them over to the appellant and asked him to get the final bill prepared at the earliest. He also promised to pay him the remaining Rs. 15000/- as soon as that bill was paid to him. The appellant caught those notes in his right hand and counted them. The complainant took out the currency notes and handed them over to the appellant and asked him to get the final bill prepared at the earliest. He also promised to pay him the remaining Rs. 15000/- as soon as that bill was paid to him. The appellant caught those notes in his right hand and counted them. He assured the complainant that his final bill would be prepared very soon. The Dy. S.P. Sh. Verma and his party over heard these talks and they also saw the transaction with their eyes. Sri Verma at once reached the table of the appellant and disclosed his identity to him. He then caught hold of his right hand in which the appellant had held the currency notes. Sri Verma took these notes in his custody. Thereafter, he took a search of the appellant, which resulted in the recovery of currency notes and prepared the memo of recovery (Ex.Ka.3) on the spot. Thereafter, he obtained a glass of water and prepared a mixture of sodium carbonate. He made the appellant wash his right hand in that mixture and the colour of the mixture became pink. He sealed a sample of this mixture in a separate phial marked Ex. XLI. In a separate glass of water he again prepared a mixture of sodium carbonate got the hand of the complainant washed by which he had handed the currency notes. The mixture again changed its colour to pink and a sample of this mixture was sealed in a separate phial. Sh. Verma brought the appellant along with the recovered articles to Police Station Sitarganj. From there he sent the Inspectors Sh. Dayal Tewari and Sh. Gaya Lai to Behgui Dam to obtain the measurement book. He then dictated a written report to Sh. Kartar Singh Vigilance Inspector (PW5) and after signing the same lodged it at the Police Station. On the basis of this report the FIR (Ex.KaA) was written by Head Constable Rewadhar Sharma and Head Constable Prem Datt entered the case against the appellant at report No. 28 of the General Diary dated 12-7-1980 at 7. p.m. an extract of which is marked Ex. Ka.5. 4. The Investigation was conducted by Sh. Shiv Dan Singh, Dy. S.P. Vigilence Department Bareilly, (PW7). He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan marked Ex. Ka. 6. He obtained the sanction order (Ex. Ka. p.m. an extract of which is marked Ex. Ka.5. 4. The Investigation was conducted by Sh. Shiv Dan Singh, Dy. S.P. Vigilence Department Bareilly, (PW7). He inspected the place of occurrence and prepared its site plan marked Ex. Ka. 6. He obtained the sanction order (Ex. Ka. 8) from the Chief Engineer, Irrigation Department, U.P. for the prosecution. of the appellant. After completing the investigation he submitted the Charge sheet (Ex.Ka.7). 5. Charge under Section 161 LP.C. and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947, was framed against the appellant to which he pleaded not guilty .. He contended that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 6. The prosecution to prove its case against the appellant by examining the complainant Sh. Agaz Mohd. Khan (PW1); Sh. Asraf Hussain (PW2); an independent witness, Sh. Netra Prakash (PW3) an Assistant Engineer of Civil Construction Division Bareilly, Dy. S.P. Sh. Ganeshi Lal Verma (PW4), who had led the trap, Vigilance Inspector Sh. Kartar Singh (PW5), who had accompanied Sh. Verma at the time of leading the trap, Constable Kaltyan Singh (PW6) who has proved the FIR (Ex.KaA) and report No. 28 of the General Diary (Ex.Ka.5) and the Investigator Sh. Dan Singh (PW7) Dy. S.P. Vigilance Department, Bareilly. 7. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. stated that on 28-6-1980 Agaz Mohd. Khan had approached him for measuring the top level of the work done by him. He got the top level measured and on rough calculation told him that only 9500 cubic metre earth had been put on the Dam. The complainant Agaz Mohd.: Khan said that he had put 14000 cubic metre of earth and that he will take a payment of that quantity of earth. When he refused to enhance the figure, he was threatened by Agaz. Mohd. Khan. On 29-6-80, he then, wrote a letter (Ex.Ka.1) to the Executive Engineer and sent it by post. He entered the final calculation in the measurement book and obtained the signature of Agaz Mohd: Khan on that entry. On 12-7-1980, the appellant had gone to Nanak Sagar Dam and when he was returning from there he was stopped by Agaz Mohd. Khan in Sitarganj. Soon after another gentlemen came to that place who later on turned out to be Dy. S. P. Vigilance. He asked him as to why he was harassing Agaz Mohd. On 12-7-1980, the appellant had gone to Nanak Sagar Dam and when he was returning from there he was stopped by Agaz Mohd. Khan in Sitarganj. Soon after another gentlemen came to that place who later on turned out to be Dy. S. P. Vigilance. He asked him as to why he was harassing Agaz Mohd. Khan. The appellant denied this allegation. He was asked by that gentleman to come with him to the police station. That man was accompanied by 4 and 5 other persons and they forcibly took him to the Police Station, Sitarganj and there they fabricated this false case against him. The appellant summoned the letter (Ext. ka.1), which he had sent by post to the Executive Engiheer, Civil Construction Division, Bareilly, through Mohd. Salim (DW1) Clerk of that Department. He also filed a certificate of posting of this letter marked Ex. Ka. 2. These documents have been filed in order to show that the appellant had been threatened by Sh. Agaz Mohd. Khan with dire consequences if he did not inflate the calculation of the work done by him at Behgul Dam. 8. I have heard the learned counsel for the appellant and learned AGA and perused the record. 9. The learned counsel for the appellant contended that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was further pointed out that the complainant who Informed the Vigilance Department had not supported the prosecution version at the same time he stated in his evidence that the money was not given as illegal gratification and it was advanced as a loan on the request of the appellant. It was further pointed out that the police party is very much interested in this case. They had the jurisdiction over the Bareilly Zone in which district Nainital does not fall. District Nainital was under the jurisdiction of S. P. Vigilance Nainltal. The trap party came from Bareilly and they apprehended the appellant without being informed to the S.P. Vigilance Nainital and even without any information to the police station Sitarganj. It was further pointed out that the Dy. S.P. Vigilance Bareilly was an Interested witness because he was the friend of the father of the complainant as Indicated in the evidence of PWl. It was further pointed out that the raiding party could go upto any extent to favour the complainant. It was further pointed out that the Dy. S.P. Vigilance Bareilly was an Interested witness because he was the friend of the father of the complainant as Indicated in the evidence of PWl. It was further pointed out that the raiding party could go upto any extent to favour the complainant. It was further pointed out by the learned counsel for the appellant that the complainant has not supported the prosecution story even though he was not declared hostile by the prosecution. The appellant can rely upon his testimony and he proved the case of defence. It was further pointed out that all the independent witnesses were not produced. Only PW2 Ashraf Hussain was produced who was declared hostile. The prosecution for the reasons best known to them withheld the rest of the witnesses. It was further pointed out that the evidence of PW4 and PW5 being the police personnel and being interested witnesses cannot be relied upon and the testimony of police officers is uncorroborated. It was further pointed that PW4 and PW5 after the trap only lodged the report and they also investigated the matter against the provisions of law. As such they were so interested in the prosecution and their testimony cannot be relied upon. It was further pointed out that it is settled position of law and It is also admitted by PW5 that the Vigilance Bareilly Zone had the jurisdiction with regard to the cases under the prevention of Corruption Act pertaining to Bareilly Range and not to district Nainital. District Nainital does not pertain within the jurisdiction of Bareilly Zone. It was contended that after lodging the report the investigation should have been conducted by Nainital police or Vigilance Department Nainital, which was not done in this case. As Suuh they were interested in prosecuting the appellant. It was further pointed out that the appellant had performed its entire part to make the payment prior to the raid. Thus the prosecution story is improbable. The learned AGA refuted the contention. 10. It is the case of the prosecution which has been disclosed by Ganeshi Lal Verma PW4 and Kartar Singh PW5 in their evidence that they are the trap witnesses though the complainant PW1 was also with the raiding party. I will take up the evidence of complainant PW1 at a later point of time. 10. It is the case of the prosecution which has been disclosed by Ganeshi Lal Verma PW4 and Kartar Singh PW5 in their evidence that they are the trap witnesses though the complainant PW1 was also with the raiding party. I will take up the evidence of complainant PW1 at a later point of time. According to the above two prosecution witnesses it was alleged that a complaint was given by the complainant PW1 to the S.P. Vigilance Bareilly to the effect that the appellant was demanding an amount of Rs. 18,000/- as illegal gratification and a part thereof Rs. 3000/- was to be paid to the appellant on 12-7-1980. The matter was entrusted to Ganeshi Lai Verma PW4 Dy. S.P. They came to Sittarganj. Direction about tile manner in which the amount should be passed on the appellant on his demand was issued to PW1 complainant. The details about the signal to the raiding party were also given by him. The procured the recovery witnesses, namely, Ashraf Hussain PW2, Bundu and Rajan Sah. There after they proceeded to Anna Purna Restaurant where the appellant was to arrive to take illegal gratification. They reached at the said restaurant at about 4 p.m. and the appellant came on a motorcycle and the complainant stopped him. Thereafter the complainant PW1 and the appellant went inside the restaurant. They started to take the tea and the money was passed to the appellant. The raiding party appeared on the scene of occurrence on receiving the signal. The raiding party had caught hold of his hand and washed his hand in a solution of sodium, which turned into pink. It is alleged that the money was to be given as an illegal gratification to prepare the final bill of the work done by PW1. PW1 had taken a contract of bank cutting of soil and he had to fill up the area of 12,000 cubic meters. It is also in evidence that 14000 cubic meter soil filled by him. As such PW1 has to receive the payment of the last bill. It is also in evidence that two running bills of the work done by PW1 had already been paid. It is also in evidence that the running bill was paid to the complainant on 10-7-1980. PW1 who is the complainant of this case, stated in his evidence that he has signed on the Fard. It is also in evidence that two running bills of the work done by PW1 had already been paid. It is also in evidence that the running bill was paid to the complainant on 10-7-1980. PW1 who is the complainant of this case, stated in his evidence that he has signed on the Fard. He has written the number of the case in his complaint submitted to the Dy.S.P. The Fard was not prepared in his presence and his signatures were obtained at the police station. It is also admitted that he called the appellant in the restaurant and handed over a sum of Rs. 3000/- to the appellant and the money was given only as a loan because he required the money for his own requirement. He also demanded more money when complainant assured him that he would get the payment of final bill he would pay rest of the amount as loan. It is also admitted by PW1 that his hands were not washed and the pink water was not recovered at the spot. He has also stated in his cross-examination that he did not pay the money for the illegal gratification but he advanced the money as a loan. He has also stated that the said complaint was sent to the vigilance department only due to the fact that he filled 14000 cubic soil but the appellant had measured it only 9000.50 cubic meter. As such the appellant caused the damage to the tune of Rs. 50,000/- to the complainant and he was annoyed with the appellant and so he made a complaint to the vigilance department. The said witness had not been declared hostile by the prosecution. 11. The defence has taken a plea in his statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the case of the appellant is that he was not making the measurements according to the wishes of the complainant and he has been falsely implicated in this case. It is well settled position of law that if a witness who has been produced before the court by the prosecution and he does not support the prosecution case and he was not cross-examined by the prosecution or he was not declared hostile his testimony can be relied upon by the defence in support of his contention. 12. It has been held in Raja Ram Vs. 12. It has been held in Raja Ram Vs. State of Rajasthan, 2005 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1050 and the same judgment has been relied upon in Mukhtar Ahmad Ansari Vs. State 2005 AIAR (Cri) 426. According to the statement of PW1 he had not paid the money for the illegal gratification and as such the evidence of PW1 is trust worthy on this point and the witness is supporting the version of the defence. This witness (PW1) has not been declared hostile by the prosecution. The prosecution cannot say that he could not rely on his testimony. In the present case PW2 Ashraf Hussain has not supported the prosecution case. He was a public witness. He has stated that he was "a worker at the relevant time with PWl. The prosecution has not adduced the evidence of Bundu and Rajan Sah the other independent witnesses of the raid before the court. Thus the only testimony of police officials remains there. 13. Whereas the evidence of police personnel PW4 Ganeshi Lal Verma and PW5 Kartar Singh is concerned, it is also in the evidence of PW1 that the father of the complainant had friendship with Dy. S.P. PW4. Section 2 of the U.P. Vigilance Establishment Act, 1965 provides that notwithstanding anything in the Police Act, 1861, the State Government may constitute a special police force to be called the Uttar Pradesh Vigilance Establishment for the investigation .of offences notified under section 3. Pursuant to the said notification the Zones' were created in the State of U.P. PW4 has stated in his evidence that the range of Bareilly consists of district Rampur, 'Bi'lduan, Pillibhit, Shahajahanpur, Moradabad and Bijnore. It is also stated that Sittarganj where the trap was made falls within the district of Nainital now Udham Singh Nagar. It is also in the evidence that there is S.P. Vigilance at Nainital. The' report .of the trap and the recovery was made at P.S. Sittarganj. However, the investigation was not given to S.P. Nainital. As such it seems that the police party was interested to prosecute the appellant. Thus in view of the above, the conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the police personnel. 14. The genesis of the case as unfolded by the prosecution is that for getting the final payment the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 18,000/-. As such it seems that the police party was interested to prosecute the appellant. Thus in view of the above, the conviction cannot be based on the sole testimony of the police personnel. 14. The genesis of the case as unfolded by the prosecution is that for getting the final payment the appellant demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 18,000/-. It is the case of the prosecution that the said amount was to be paid on 12-7-1980 at about 4 p.m. at Annapurna restaurant Sittarganj and recovered the currency notes from the appellant. There is an inconsistency in the ocular testimony that the hands of the appellant were washed in a solution by the raiding party and the solution turned into pink colour. According to the PW1 it was not done but according to the police personnel it was done so. According to the prosecution PW1 was a contractor in the Department. He had a contract of bank cutting and he obtained the money of two bills, which were at about one lac. The payment of second bill was paid on 10-7-1980. The rest of the amount was to be paid after final payment. According to the prosecution evidence the formalities for final payment had been carried out. According to PW1 the measurement book was filled on 8-7-1980 prior to the date of trap and the signature of the contractor were also obtained. It is in the evidence of PW3 Netra Prakash, Assistant Engineer that before preparing the final bill the measurement book is prepared. He admitted that measurement book was filled on 8-7-1980 and the level book was prepared on 27-6-80. PW3 Netra Prakash has narrated the entire procedure how the final bill is prepared. According to the prosecution the appellant was demanding a sum of Rs. 18,000/- for the payment of final bill where as it is admitted to PW3 Netra Prakash that the bill of Rs. 11,600/- was paid in cash and a sum of Rs. 30'00/- was deposited in fixed deposit. It is the prosecution case that the appellant was demanding Rs. 18,000/ - as bribe to prepare the final bill amounting to Rs. 14,600/-. The bribe, which is said to be claimed by the appellant, was more than the amount of the final bill. 11,600/- was paid in cash and a sum of Rs. 30'00/- was deposited in fixed deposit. It is the prosecution case that the appellant was demanding Rs. 18,000/ - as bribe to prepare the final bill amounting to Rs. 14,600/-. The bribe, which is said to be claimed by the appellant, was more than the amount of the final bill. Moreover, the measurement book was filled to prepare the final bill on 8-7-1980 and the final bill was to be prepared by the office on the basis of measure book. The measure book had already been filled. Thus the appellant had nothing to do for the payment of the amount. If the appellant would have demanded the bribe prior to filling of the measurement book, it could have been said that the appellant was demanding the illegal gratification. According to PW3 Nehra Prakash if the entries have been made in the measurement book the entry cannot be altered or changed. As such he had already completed the act, which is to be done on the part of the appellant. The story of demanding of an amount of Rs. 18,000/seems to be improbable. 15. It is also in the evidence of PW1 and also in the statement of the appellant u/s 313 Cr.P.C. that the complainant was claiming payment for cubic meters of soil. The appellant had measured soil filling as 9000 cubic meter whereas he was claiming for 14000, cubic meter soil. It is also admitted to PW1 that the appellant caused the damage of Rs. 50,000/- and he was annoyed with him. This factum also shows that there was a grievance to the appellant and as such the appellant has been falsely implicated. I am fortified to take this view to the decision of Apex Court reported in State of UP Vs. Jagdish 2003 Supreme Court Cases 1008 in which the accused was charged u/s 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 IPC. It was alleged that the R.I. Technical demanded a sum of Rs. 11,000/- for issue of fitness certificate of commercial vehicle. Jagdish 2003 Supreme Court Cases 1008 in which the accused was charged u/s 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and u/s 161 IPC. It was alleged that the R.I. Technical demanded a sum of Rs. 11,000/- for issue of fitness certificate of commercial vehicle. The fitness was carried out prior to the time of trap.' Thereupon the road tax was paid by the complainant and that road tax was assessed by the R.T.O. and it was deposited in between 1.30 to 2 p.m. and the raid was made at 2 p.m. alleging that the R.I. was demanding a sum of Rs. 1000/- for giving the fitness certificate. The Apex Court held that the evidence of trap cannot be believed as the act for which the illegal gratification was demanded had already been ,done by the R.I. 16. The appellant had been charged for the offences under section 5(1) (d) read with section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and section 161 IPC. As already, noticed, the factum of recovery of the amount of Rs. 3000/ - from the possession of the appellant is not in doubt. Is, the presumption under section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947,attracted to the facts of this case. From a bare reading of section 4(1), It is seen that presumption arising under section 4 is a rebuttable presumption and is not available to the prosecution for proving a charge under section 5(2) read with section 5(1) (d) of the Act. That presumption arises only in 'regard to cases falling under section 161 IPC or to an offence referred to in clause (a} or (b) of section 5(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Since the presumption under section, 4(1) is not attracted to an offence under section 5(1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, it cannot 'be raised against the appellant for the said offence. Whether presumption can be raised in the facts and circumstances of this case with regard to the offence under section 161 IPC is the next issue. ' 17. Whether presumption can be raised in the facts and circumstances of this case with regard to the offence under section 161 IPC is the next issue. ' 17. The presumption under section 4(1) in reference to an offence under section 161 IPC is, as already noticed, a rebuttable presumption: The only evidence led in this case to establish charge under section 161 IPC of the appellant having received gratification other than legal reward, as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act in the exercise of his official functions to favour the prime mover is the statement of the Contractor, PW1. As already noticed, the Contractor has given different versions of the occurrence in his statement before the Vigilance Wing and in the court. At the trial, he has not supported the. prosecution case fully. On the other hand, the explanation given by the appellant both during the cross-examination' of prosecution witnesses and in his own statement u/s 313 Cr.P.C. is quite plausible. Where an accused sets up a defence or offers an explanation, it is well settled that he is not required to prove his defence beyond a reasonable doubt but only by preponderance of probabilities. On the prosecution's own showing, in this case, that onus can be said to have been duly discharged by the appellant, more particularly, when the prosecution lead the evidence of PW1 to show as to the money was advanced as loan and not the illegal gratification to the appellant. The witness was not declared hostile by the prosecution. May be, the allegation that the appellant accepted the amount but the court cannot convict an accused only on such probability or suspicion, howsoever strong it may be. "Between may be true and must be true, there is a long distance to travel" and in this case the prosecution has failed to travel that distance through any unimpeachable evidence adduced by the prosecution. The case of the prosecution has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt (See M. Abbas Vs. State of Kerala, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1270). 18. In the present case PW1 the complainant himself has stated that it was not a gratification. As such the prosecution evidence itself has rebutted the presumption. 19. The case of the prosecution has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt (See M. Abbas Vs. State of Kerala, 2002 Supreme Court Cases (Cri) 1270). 18. In the present case PW1 the complainant himself has stated that it was not a gratification. As such the prosecution evidence itself has rebutted the presumption. 19. In view of the above discussion I am of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the appellant deserved to be acquitted. 20. The appeal is allowed and the impugned conviction and sentence per judgment and order dated 5-5-1983 are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him u/s 161 IPC and u/s 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. 21. let the lower court record be sent back to the court concerned for compliance. Compliance be submitted within two months.