Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2008 DIGILAW 2153 (RAJ)

State of Rajasthan v. Bishan Das

2008-09-12

MAHESH BHAGWATI

body2008
JUDGMENT 1. - Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment dated 14th December, 1990, whereby the Special Judge, Prevention of Corruption Cases, Jaipur, acquitted the accused respondent Bishan Das in the offences under Section 161 of Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as the 'Act 1947'). 2. The nub of the appellant's story is that on 1st May, 1986 PW/1 Nemi Chand submitted a written complaint Ex. P/1 before Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti Corruption Department, Ajmer stating that his brother-inlaw Shri Narayan Singh Rajguru obtained registered certificate with regard to RST No. 186/64 and CST AD13/31 in August 1980 from Commercial Taxes Department to turn a business. After some time, his Brother-in-law left for Bombay after winding up his business. In the year 1983, he had informed the Commercial Taxes Department also with regard to his business being zero (sale and purchase zero). Since his Brother-in-law had deputed him to execute the residual work, he went to Sales Tax Department many a times but the accused Bishan Das, who was the dealing clerk solicited for a bribe of 200 rupees to clear the file. After his repeated requests, the accused finally agreed to accept 50 rupees. It is alleged that the accused had called him with 50 rupees on 1st May, 1986 in the office which he did not want to pay and get an action to be taken against him. 3. PW/11 Mahendra Kumar Goyal formulated a scheme for entrapping the accused respondent Bishan Sindhi and co-opted two independent witnesses PW/2 Vijayashwar Prasad Mittal and PW/3 Asim Chandra Datta in whose presence the complainant gave 50 rupees of different denominations to Shri Goyal, who having the phenolphthalein powder applied upon them returned to the complainant under instruction to give the same to the accused respondent on his demand. The trap party reached the office of Assistant Commercial Taxes Officer, Ajmer at 2.30 PM and on getting a signal from the complainant caught the accused respondent red handed with the initiated currency notes. When asked about the currency notes of 50 rupees by the Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Goyal, the respondent replied that he obtained the money from the complainant against the demand which had been raised in the name of his Brother-in-law Narayan Singh Rajguru. When asked about the currency notes of 50 rupees by the Additional Superintendent of Police Shri Goyal, the respondent replied that he obtained the money from the complainant against the demand which had been raised in the name of his Brother-in-law Narayan Singh Rajguru. He refused to have accepted this money as illegal gratification. Shri Goyal seized the currency notes from the possession of the accused vide memo Ex. P/3, drew the necessary memos and after having FIR lodged Ex. P/12, recorded the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of Criminal Procedure Code and after usual investigation sent the accused for trial to the competent Court. 4. The respondent was indicted for the offences under Section 161 of IPC and Section 5(1)(d)(2) of Act, 1947 who pleaded not guilty and claimed trial. In order to further its version, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. In his explanation under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code, the accused claimed innocence. On completion of trial, the Court acquitted the accused as indicated hereinabove. 5. Heard the submissions advanced by the learned Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, learned counsel for the accused respondent and with their assistance scanned the material available on record. 6. Learned Public Prosecutor has advanced the routine submissions before me contending that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He has further contended that the demand and acceptance of bribe of 50 rupees is very well proved from the statements of decoy PW/1 Nemi Chand, PW/2 Vijayashwar Prasad Mittal and PW/3 Asim Chandra Datta. The Police personnel accompanying the raid party have also corroborated the prosecution case. There is no reason to disbelieve their testimoney, as such, the impugned judgment of the lower Court be set aside and the accused respondent be convicted and punished accordingly for the alleged offences. 7. Per contra, the learned counsel for the accused respondent has urged that the impugned judgment of the lower Court is perfectly just and proper. The learned trial Court has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and his finding of acquittal arrived at, is well in tune with the material available on record. The impugned judgment is cogent and well merited which calls for no interference, as such, the State appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. The learned trial Court has discussed the prosecution evidence in detail and his finding of acquittal arrived at, is well in tune with the material available on record. The impugned judgment is cogent and well merited which calls for no interference, as such, the State appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. Having reflected over the submissions and properly weighed the prosecution evidence, it is noticed that the respondent Bishan Das furnished an explanation at the first instance before PW/11 Shri Mahendra Kr. Goyal Additional Superintendent of Police, stating that he never solicited for a bribe of 50 rupees nor he accepted this amount as illegal gratification. He submitted that the amount which he had obtained was against the demand raised in the name of Narayan Singh Rajguru who happened to be Brother-in-law of decoy Nemi Chand. He further explained that when the complainant gave him 50 rupees, he on the contrary, asked for 150 rupees and the decoy replied that rest of the 100 rupees, he would give him lateron. PW/2 Vijayashwar Prasad Mittal is the witness who was directed by the Additional Superintendent of Police to hear the conversation of the decoy and the accused and watch their activities minutely. This witness has supported the explanation furnished by the respondent before the Additional Superintendent of Police. Shri Mittal, in his searching cross examination, conceded that when the decoy gave 50 rupees to the accused respondent, he, on the contrary, asked for 150 rupees. The same explanation, the accused furnished before the Additional S.P. at the first instance that he had taken this money against the demand raised by the Sales Tax Department against Shri Narayan Singh Rajguru. Similarly, PW/3 Asim Chandra Datta has also supported this defence taken by the respondent, before the Additional Superintendent of Police, Shri Goyal. 9. In the case of Man Singh v. Delhi Administration AIR 1979 SC 1455 the Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed: "It is well settled that in such cases the accused is not required to prove his defence by the strict standard of proof of reasonable doubt but it is sufficient if he offers an explanation or defence which is probable and once this is done, the presumption under Section 4 stands rebutted". 10. 10. In the case of Punjabrao v. State of Maharashtra ( 2002 (10) SCC 371 ) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held thus: "it is too well settled that in a case where the accused offers an explanation for receipt of the alleged amount, the question that arises for consideration is whether that explanation can be said to have been established. It is further clear that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability." (emphasis supplied) 11. In Chaturdas Bhagwandas Patel v. The State of Gujarat ( AIR 1976 SC 1497 ) , this Court held that: "the burden that rests on an accused to displace the statutory presumption that is raised under Section 4(1) of the Act, is not onerous as that cast on the prosecution to prove its case. But such burden has to be discharged, by bringing on record evidence, either direct or circumstantial, to establish with reasonable probability, that the money was accepted by him, other than as a motive or reward as is referred to in Section 161, IPC." (emphasis supplied) 12. In the case of Punjabrao, a patwari was on a campaign to collect loan amounts due to Government. The complainant therein was admittedly a debtor to the Government. The accused explained that the amount in question was received towards loan. The Hon'ble Apex Court accepted this explanation and held that the appellant had established the defence by preponderance of probability and thus acquitted him. 13. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of M.S. Narayana Menon @ Mani v. State of Kerala and anr., 2006(2) WLC (SC) : ( 2006 (6) SCC 39 ) has held that: "Moreover, the onus on an accused is not as heavy as that of the prosecution. It may be compared with a defendant in a civil proceeding." 14. Thus, it is well settled that the accused is not required to establish his defence by proving beyond reasonable doubt as the prosecution, but can establish the same by preponderance of probability. The material available on record also reveals that the complainant had an altercation with the accused in the office in connection with this work only. It is found that the complainant Nemi Chand signed on many papers as Narayan Singh Rajguru which was opposed by the accused. The material available on record also reveals that the complainant had an altercation with the accused in the office in connection with this work only. It is found that the complainant Nemi Chand signed on many papers as Narayan Singh Rajguru which was opposed by the accused. It gave rise to differences between them. Since no work of the complainant was pending with the accused, hence it can safely be inferred that the respondent succeeded in establishing his defence by preponderance of probability. The learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The judgment of the lower Court is found to be cogent and well merited. It suffers from no infirmity. The finding of acquittal arrived at by the learned trial Court is just and proper with which I fully concur and to my firm view the impugned judgment calls for no interference. 15. For these reasons, the State appeal being devoid of merit stands dismissed. 16. The accused-respondent is on bail. He need not surrender and his bail bond stand discharged.State Appeal Dismissed. *******