Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2023 DIGILAW 331 (ALL)

Net Ram v. State of U. P.

2023-02-01

SAMIT GOPAL

body2023
JUDGMENT : SAMIT GOPAL, J. 1. The present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant Net Ram against the judgment and order dated 05.09.1983 passed by the Special Judge (VII Additional Special Judge), Bareilly in Special Case No. 7 of 1980 (State of U.P. vs. Net Ram) by which the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 to one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to one month rigorous imprisonment, under Section 161 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to one month rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently but the total amount of fine ordered to be paid is Rs. 200/- under both the counts and the default sentence is also ordered to run consequently. 2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 15.12.1978 at about 11:30 am he while being posted as a tubewell operator in the Tubewell Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and working in Village Satuia Khas, Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly accepted Rs. 30/- cash as illegal gratification from Puran Lal Yaduvanshi PW-2 (the original complainant) for not making an entry of irrigation for him in the government records. 3. The records of the trial court were burnt in an incident of fire in the building of the Judgeship of Bareilly in the night of 18/19.11.1979 after which a letter was written to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly requesting him to send a duplicate case diary. The said letter is Exb. Ka-18 to the records. A list of documents relating to the case which had been destroyed due to fire was also proved which is Exb. Ka-19 to the records. The relevant records were reconstructed on the basis of duplicate case diary maintained by Anti-Corruption Department which was proved by Badri Narayan Sharma PW-4 who is the DSP, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly. The secondary evidence was admitted due to loss of primary evidence in the said incident of fire. The factum of fire was stated by Nabi Sher Khan PW-7 the Clerk of DGC (Criminal) that the documents were kept at the place provided to the DGC (Criminal) in the building of Bareilly Judgeship. 4. The secondary evidence was admitted due to loss of primary evidence in the said incident of fire. The factum of fire was stated by Nabi Sher Khan PW-7 the Clerk of DGC (Criminal) that the documents were kept at the place provided to the DGC (Criminal) in the building of Bareilly Judgeship. 4. As per prosecution case, Puran Lal Yaduvanshi PW-2 got irrigated his agricultural land from tubewell No. 32 of which the accused appellant was supervisor in the night of 11.12.1978. On 12.12.1978 the accused appellant came to the field of Puran Lal at about 04:00 pm and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30/- as water was supplied from his tubewell No. 32. The same was refused by Puran Lal. The accused appellant again came to him on 13.12.1978 and demanded money again and threatened him that if he does not give him the said money he would enter Rs. 100/- as charges in the irrigation records which would have to be paid by him. Puran Lal agreed to pay the said money on 15.12.1978. On 14.12.1978 Puran Lal gave a written complaint to DSP (Vigilance), Anti-Corruption regarding the same. The said complaint is Exb. Ka-7 to the records. The said Officer recorded the statement of Puran Lal which is Exb. Ka-8 to the records. He wanted to get the accused appellant arrested while taking money. The proceedings of trap started and currency notes were taken and numbers were recorded after which initials were put on them and were returned to Puran Lal with the direction to him to meet on 15.12.1978 at 08:00 am at the turning of Shahi Road of Fatehganj West. On 15.12.1978 B.P. Sharma PW-4 accompanied by police officials went to Fatehganj West near Shahi Road at about 08:00 am and met the original complainant. They travelled from Bareilly in a jeep and picked up the original complainant and proceeded towards Rampur Road and reached the brick kiln of Prem Singh where Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were taken as witnesses. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and pre-trap proceedings were completed. Subsequently, the original complainant and the police party reached tubewell no. 32 which was found locked. On enquiry, it was told that the accused had gone towards the fields of other persons. They then came to the brick kiln and waited for him. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and pre-trap proceedings were completed. Subsequently, the original complainant and the police party reached tubewell no. 32 which was found locked. On enquiry, it was told that the accused had gone towards the fields of other persons. They then came to the brick kiln and waited for him. They then went towards the field where the accused was present. On seeing the original complainant, the accused enquired about his demand. The original complainant then gave the currency notes to him which was kept in the right pocket by the pant of the accused. The currency notes were marked as Exb. 1, 2 and 3. Immediately thereupon, the police party came there introduced themselves and apprehended the accused appellant and on search, recovered the said notes and also recovered a bag containing various other government papers. The notes were kept in a separate bag which was sealed and the hands of the accused was washed in sodium carbonate solution which changed its colour. The bottles were then sealed. The recovery memo which was Exb. Ka-9 prepared by B.P. Sharma PW-4 of which Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh PW-5 were the witnesses along with Sub-Inspector Anar Singh, Puran Lal PW-2 and Tika Ram. The recovery was signed by the said witnesses. The First Information Report was then lodged on the oral dictation by B.P. Sharma PW-4 at the police station which is Exb. Ka-14 to the records and the corresponding GD was Exb. Ka-15 to the records. The pant of the accused was also taken into possession and marked as Exb. 6. 5. The matter was investigated after which a charge sheet no. 2 dated 21.08.1979 was submitted against the accused appellant under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, the same is Exb. Ka-21 to the records. 6. The trial court vide order dated 30.09.1980 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly framed charges under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 against the accused appellant. 7. Ka-21 to the records. 6. The trial court vide order dated 30.09.1980 passed by VIII Additional Sessions Judge, Bareilly framed charges under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 against the accused appellant. 7. The trial started in which Rameshwar Prasad Sharma the head clerk in the Tubewell Division was examined as PW-1, Puran Lal the original complainant was examined as PW-2, Madan Mohan the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bareilly was examined as PW-3, B.P. Sharma the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly was examined as PW-4, Indrapal Singh an independent witness was examined as PW-5, Badshah Mishra the constable clerk Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly was examined as PW-6, Nabi Sher the clerk of DGC (Criminal), Bareilly was examined as PW-7, Shishupal Singh the Constable, Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly was examined as PW-8, Roop Lal Constable, Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly was examined as PW-9 and Dev Prakash Sharma Inspector Anti-Corruption, Bareilly was examined as PW-10. 8. The accused in his defence produced Yudhaveer Singh as DW-1. The trial court concluded the trial and convicted the accused appellant as stated above. 9. Heard Sri Darwari Lal, learned counsel for the appellant and Sri Ankit Srivastava, learned brief holder for the State and perused the records. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant argued that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is argued that Puran Lal PW-2 the original complainant was having field in Arazi No. 130, 131 and 132 in village Makrantpur, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly which was having total area of one acre. The allegation that the said field was being irrigated by tubewell No. 32 of which the appellant was the operator, is a false allegation. It is argued that Yudhveer Singh DW-1 who is the Jiledar in the Tubewell Department has produced the five year register of the department pertaining to the said village and has filed its extract relevant to the present case which is Exb. Kha-9 which clearly shows that the land of the original complainant was not within the territory of lands to be irrigated by tubewell No. 32 from the year 1970-78. Kha-9 which clearly shows that the land of the original complainant was not within the territory of lands to be irrigated by tubewell No. 32 from the year 1970-78. It is argued that as such since the land was not in the territory of tubewell No. 32 of which the accused appellant was the operator there was no occasion for him to irrigate the said land and threaten the original complainant of entering the same in the register and thereby levy Rs. 100/- as payment for the same. It is argued that as such there was no occasion for him to demand a bribe of Rs. 30/- from the original complainant and the original complainant could not have been compelled to pay the same as his fields could not be irrigated from tubewell No. 32. It is further argued that although as per prosecution case, Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were said to be two private independent witnesses who were taken by the Deputy Superintendent of Police for being witnesses to the trap proceedings but Takan Singh has not been produced before the court. It is further argued that Puran Lal PW-2 the original complainant has in his statement stated that Krishna Pal Singh his brother was present at the time of demand of the illegal gratification but even Krishna Pal Singh has not been examined before the trial court and as such there is no corroboration of the version of Puran Lal PW-2. It is further argued that the present incident is said to have taken place in the year 1978 and since then 48 years have passed. The accused appellant was 26 years old on 05.09.1983 which is the date on which his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded and as such was aged about 21 years at the time of the incident and as such as of now is 69 years old. It is argued that looking to the infirmities, the appellant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. 11. Per contra, learned brief holder for the State argued that the prosecution has been successful in proving the case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. The testimony of the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was Incharge of the trap team and also that of Puran Lal PW-2 the original complainant and Indrapal Singh PW-5 the independent witness supports the prosecution case. The testimony of the Deputy Superintendent of Police who was Incharge of the trap team and also that of Puran Lal PW-2 the original complainant and Indrapal Singh PW-5 the independent witness supports the prosecution case. The trial court has recorded cogent reasons for holding the appellant guilty and has thus convicted and sentenced him. It is argued that as such the present appeal is devoid of any merit and deserves to be dismissed. 12. Rameshwar Prasad Sharma PW-1 is the Head Clerk in the Tubewell Division, Bareilly. He states that Madan Mohan Agarwal was posted as Executive Engineer from 24.06.1975 to 19.02.1980. On 16.12.1978 a letter was received from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly, the accused Net Ram was an operator of tubewell No. 32, Bareilly and by the said letter it was informed that he has been arrested on 15.12.1978 taking bribe. He files the said letter which was received by Madan Mohan Agarwal. He proves his signature. The same is Exb. Ka-1 to the records. On the basis of the said letter, the accused was suspended. Madan Mohan Agarwal was the Appointing Authority of the accused and was empowered to suspend him. The suspension order was signed by Madan Mohan Agarwal. He files the same which is Exb. Ka-2 to the records. 13. A confidential letter dated 19.08.1979 was sent by Badri Prasad Sharma the Deputy Superintendent of Police to the Executive Engineer which was received by the witness through which sanction for prosecution was demanded. The said letter was sent to him with endorsement along with the said letter. The case diary were also sent. The signature of Madan Mohan Agarwal has been identified on the said letter which is Exb. Ka-3 to the records. Madan Mohan Agarwal gave sanction for prosecution on 21.08.1979. He identifies his signature. The same is Exb. Ka-4 to the records. The original sanction letter was given to the Vigilance Department on which also his signature was identified. The same is Exb. Ka-5 to the records. On the basis of the sanction, the Vigilance Department issued a letter dated 04.09.1979 which was received in his office on 11.09.1979 by which it was informed that charge sheet has been filed in the Court on 21.08.1979. On the said letter, Madan Mohan Agarwal had signed which was identified by him. The same is Exb. Ka-6 to the records. 14. On the said letter, Madan Mohan Agarwal had signed which was identified by him. The same is Exb. Ka-6 to the records. 14. Puran Lal PW-2 is the original complainant. He states that on 14.12.1978 at about 06:00 pm he met Deputy Superintendent of Police. He informed him that due to shortage of diesel he was not able to run his pumping set for irrigating the fields as such he wanted to irrigate the same from the government Tubewell No. 32. Accused Net Ram was the operator in the said tubewell. He was openly demanding Rs. 100/- per bigha as bribe and did not use to enter the irrigation in the government records. On 11/12.12.1978 his fields were irrigated, the accused came to him on 12.12.1978 at 04:00 pm at his field and asked him to give Rs. 30/- as bribe after which he would not enter the irrigation in the register. At that time, Krishna Pal Singh the brother of the witness was also present. The accused threatened him that if he does not give the bribe then he would enter Rs. 100/- as irrigation charges in the records and would not give water in future. On 13.12.1978, the accused again came to his field and told that he has stopped the irrigation to his field and whether he wants to give money or not. He promised to give the money to the accused on 15.12.1978. He then gave a written complaint to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He was shown the duplicate copy of the said application to which he states that he had also noted the numbers of the notes to be given. The notes were shown to the Deputy Superintendent of Police. The same were marked as Exb. 1, 2 and 3. The notes were given back to him by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. His statement was recorded by him. He was called at the Shahi crossing in Fatehganj on the next morning at 08:00 am. He gave an application on 14.12.1978. He reached the said place on 15.12.1978 after which he along with the DSP, Inspector and two Constables stayed there for sometime and then went towards Rampur Road. Two witnesses Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were taken by the police. He told the story regarding giving of bribe to the witnesses. He gave an application on 14.12.1978. He reached the said place on 15.12.1978 after which he along with the DSP, Inspector and two Constables stayed there for sometime and then went towards Rampur Road. Two witnesses Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were taken by the police. He told the story regarding giving of bribe to the witnesses. Three notes were then treated with powder and given back to him and he was told to give the same as bribe when demanded. The phenolphthalein powder was put in sodium carbonate solution which turned red after which the bottle was sealed. The said bottle was marked as material Exb. 4. The remaining powder was kept in envelope and was sealed which was marked as Exb. 5. The said persons then went to tubewell No. 32 where the accused was not present and it was locked. They were informed that he has gone on a regular inspection. They then went to the brick kiln of Prem Singh and waited there in the telephone room. They then saw the accused coming. The Deputy Superintendent of Police sent him and two witnesses there. The police personnels while hiding themselves reached the field. The accused was talking to Tika Ram. He was carrying a bag in one hand and a map in the other hand. He told him that he has kept the register vacant and as he had promised to give Rs. 30/- whether he has brought it or not. The witness told that he has brought the money and handed him over the treated notes. The notes were counted by the accused and kept in the right pocket of his pant and he told that he has done the work. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then came there and apprehended him on 15.12.1978 at about 11:30 am. He introduced himself and asked the name of the accused and took his search in presence of Tika Ram. On search from his right pocket Rs. 30/- was recovered. A bag containing officials documents was also recovered. The notes were taken and sealed in an envelope. The pant was also taken into possession. The pant is marked as material Exb. 6. The hand of the accused was then washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink which was also kept in a bottle and sealed. The same was marked as material Exb. 7. The notes were taken and sealed in an envelope. The pant was also taken into possession. The pant is marked as material Exb. 6. The hand of the accused was then washed in sodium carbonate solution which turned pink which was also kept in a bottle and sealed. The same was marked as material Exb. 7. The recovery memo of the bottle and notes were prepared in front of the witness after which the accused was taken to the police station. 15. Madan Mohan Agarwal PW-3 was the Executive Engineer, Tubewell Division, Bareilly. He states that he was posted there on 16.12.1978. He received a letter on 16.12.1978 from Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly. The accused was posted as an operator in tubewell No. 32. On 15.12.1978 the accused was arrested taking bribe. On 16.12.1978 he received an information about it. He marked the same to the head Clerk. He identifies the endorsement on Exb. Ka-1. He suspended the accused on 17.12.1978. He identifies his signature on the suspension letter. On 21.08.1979 he received a confidential letter dated 19.08.1979 on which he granted sanction for prosecution. He marked to the same the head clerk. He identifies his endorsement. Sanction was granted by him. He was the appointing authority of the accused and as such was empowered to suspend him. He received information on 04.09.1979 that charge against the accused has been submitted on 21.08.1979 which was marked by him to the head clerk which he identifies. 16. Badri Prasad Sharma the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly PW-4 states that he was posted as such on 14.12.1978. On the said date, Puran Lal met him at 06:00 pm and told him about the accused demanding Rs. 30/- as bribe for him and about the details of the conversations between him and the accused. He states that the certified copy of the duplicate case diary was made by the Investigating Officer which is marked as Exb. Ka-7. He interrogated the original complainant and recorded his statement which is Exb. Ka-8 to the records. 17. The duplicate case diary was given by the Investigating Officer. He states that three notes of Rs. 10/- each were given to him on which he had put his initials. He identifies the same. Ka-7. He interrogated the original complainant and recorded his statement which is Exb. Ka-8 to the records. 17. The duplicate case diary was given by the Investigating Officer. He states that three notes of Rs. 10/- each were given to him on which he had put his initials. He identifies the same. He then gave the said notes to the original complainant with the direction to meet him on the next day at 08:00 am. He met the original complainant on the next day and trap proceedings took place. Two witnesses were namely Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were taken by him who were detailed about the matter. The notes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and given to the complainant for giving it to the accused. The remaining part of the powder was mixed with the solution which turned its colour and was sealed in the bottle. Dry powder was also sealed in a small bag. The notes were returned to Puran Lal which was given to the accused. The police reached the tubewell and he was informed on enquiry that the accused has gone to the fields for inspection. They then sat in the telephone room of brick kiln of Prem Singh and saw the accused roaming in the field. Puran Lal the original complainant, Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh the independent witnesses went to the fields and met the accused. The accused demanded the money after which the original complainant gave him the said notes which were accepted by him and kept in the right pocket of his pant after which he told him that his work has been done. The said witness along with other police personnels reached the place and disclosed their identity at about 11:30 am and apprehended the accused and on search, recovered the said notes and bag containing documents. Currency notes were sealed in a bag and hands of the accused was washed in sodium carbonate solution which changed its colour. The said solution was also sealed in bottle. He then wrote a recovery memo which is Exb. Ka-9 in presence of Takan Singh, Indrapal Singh, S.I. Anar Singh and the original complainant Puran Lal. He arrested the accused and brought him to the police station after which he dictated a report orally which was transcribed by Badshah Mishra PW-6 which was marked as Exb. Ka-14 to the records. He then wrote a recovery memo which is Exb. Ka-9 in presence of Takan Singh, Indrapal Singh, S.I. Anar Singh and the original complainant Puran Lal. He arrested the accused and brought him to the police station after which he dictated a report orally which was transcribed by Badshah Mishra PW-6 which was marked as Exb. Ka-14 to the records. The corresponding GD was marked as Exb. Ka-15 to the records. He wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer Madan Mohan Agarwal for suspending the accused from his duty as he was arrested accepting bribe. The accused was suspended. He then further wrote a letter to the Executive Engineer for granting sanction under Section 197 Cr.P.C. for prosecuting the accused under Section 161 IPC and 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act which was accorded by him. He then informed the Executive Engineer that charge sheet (Exb. Ka-21) has been submitted in court on 21.08.1979. The case property was sent to the Police Station Fatehganj West and was deposited in Sadar Malkhana by Constable Roop Lal PW-9 on 21.12.1978 which was received by Constable Shishu Pal PW-8. 18. Indrapal Singh PW-5 is an the witness to the trap proceedings. He and Takan Singh were going towards their field and on the way, a jeep came and called them. The person introduced himself as a Deputy Superintendent of Police. There were three other police personnels and a driver in the vehicle. Puran Lal was also present. He was told that a division operator Net Ram is to be arrested taking bribe and their help is needed to which he agreed. Three notes of Rs. 10/- each were taken out which was treated by powder and returned to Puran Lal. He was told that notes would be given before him. The powder was mixed in the solution which turned pink in colour which was kept in a bottle. The remaining powder was kept in an envelope and sealed. A memo of the same was prepared on which he signed as a witness. They then reached the tubewell on a jeep. It was told that the accused has gone to the field for inspection. They then waited at the brick kiln of Prem Singh and saw the accused in the field. A memo of the same was prepared on which he signed as a witness. They then reached the tubewell on a jeep. It was told that the accused has gone to the field for inspection. They then waited at the brick kiln of Prem Singh and saw the accused in the field. The Deputy Superintendent of Police then left him, Takan Singh and the original complainant Puran Lal and went away along with other persons. The police personnels were hiding themselves. The accused was carrying a map and bag. He saw the original complainant and told him that he has not completed the irrigation register and whether he has brought the money or not. Puran Lal the original complainant then gave him the said notes which were kept by him in pocket of his pant. He then told him that his work has been done and he would not record the irrigation. The Deputy Superintendent of Police and other police personnels then came there at about 11:00 am and disclosed their identity and apprehended him. On search, they recovered the said notes and took the bag also in possession. The recovery memo was prepared. He identifies the said recovery memo and states that the same was prepared in his presence and he had signed on it. Pant of the accused was also taken into custody. The recovery memo was also prepared which is identified by him. He states that the hand of the accused was washed with sodium corbonate solution which turned its colour which was also sealed in a bottle. The accused was then arrested. 19. Badshah Mishra PW-6 was posted as a Constable Clerk at Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly. He had transcribed the oral report on the dictation of Badri Prasad Sharma the Deputy Superintendent of Police. He proves the same. He further states that Badri Prasad Sharma had given four sealed exhibits which were identified by him. 20. Nabi Sher Khan PW-7 is the Clerk in the office of DGC (Criminal). He states that on 18/19.11.1979 an almirah in the office was burnt and all the articles kept inside were burnt. The documents of the present case which were received by the DGC (Criminal), were kept in the room provided in the building of Bareilly Judgeship but miscreants had set on fire, the court building in which the documents were destroyed. He states that on 18/19.11.1979 an almirah in the office was burnt and all the articles kept inside were burnt. The documents of the present case which were received by the DGC (Criminal), were kept in the room provided in the building of Bareilly Judgeship but miscreants had set on fire, the court building in which the documents were destroyed. A letter was written to Badri Prasad the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption to send a duplicate case diary. The said letter was Exb. Ka-18. He proved the list of documents which were burnt which is Exb. Ka-19. The papers relevant to the case were then reconstructed on the basis of duplicate case diary maintained by the Anti-Corruption Department and were proved by PW-4 to the satisfaction of the court. 21. Shishu Pal Singh the Head Constable was examined as PW-8. He states that four sealed bundles were kept in the Malkhana of Police Station Fatehganj West, Bareilly. 22. Roop Lal PW-9 a Constable was posted at Police Station Fatehganj, District Bareilly on 20.12.1978. He states that he took four sealed bundles to the Sadar Malkhana which he deposited there on 21.12.1978 which was received by PW-8. 23. Dev Prakash Sharma PW-10 is the Investigating Officer of the case. He states that on 23.12.1978 he recorded the statement of B.P. Sharma the Deputy Superintendent of Police, then on the next day he recorded the statement of Sub-Inspector Pawan Chandra Pandey and Sub-Inspector Anar Singh. On the next day, he recorded the statement of Chhote Khan and Puran Lal. He then recorded the statement of Indrapal the independent witness. He prepared the site plan which is Exb. Ka-20. He tried to contact Tika Ram but could not find him. Subsequently, his statement was recorded on 20.1.1979. Sanction was obtained by him for prosecuting the accused which was accorded by Madan Mohan Agarwal the Executive Engineer. He submitted a charge sheet which is Exb. Ka-21 against the accused. 24. The accused denied the said incident. He claimed false implication due to enmity with the original complainant Puran Lal. Further, the accused appellant states that the original complainant wanted to irrigate his field in unfair manner but he refused to do so and as such he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In defence, samples of seals of solutions Exb. Kha-1, Kha-2 and Kha-3 were filed. Further, the accused appellant states that the original complainant wanted to irrigate his field in unfair manner but he refused to do so and as such he has been falsely implicated in the present case. In defence, samples of seals of solutions Exb. Kha-1, Kha-2 and Kha-3 were filed. Yudhveer Singh DW-1 was produced as a defence witness. 25. Yudhveer Singh DW-1 states that he is the Jiledar in the Tubewell Department and has produced the five years register and filed the extract from it which is Exb. Kha-9 to show that Khasra Plot Nos. 130, 131 and 132 were out of territory of tubewell No. 32 from 1970-78. 26. The trial court has thus convicted the accused-appellant as stated above. 27. The first and foremost question which was the genesis of the present case was an allegation by Puran Lal PW-2 the original complainant that his fields were irrigated from tubewell No. 32 by the accused appellant for which he demanded Rs. 30/- as bribe from him otherwise he would have entered Rs. 100/- in the government records which would have been realized from him. The field of the original complainant as per his complaint lay in Arazi No. 130, 131 and 132 in village Makrantpur, P.S. Fatehganj West, District Bareilly which was having a total area of 1 acre. He states that the said fields are being irrigated by tubewell No. 32 of which the accused appellant is the operator. The register of the area of tubewell within which they operate was produced by DW-1 Yudhveer Singh and its extract which is Exb. Kha-9 to the records shows that Khasra Nos. 130, 131 and 132 remained out of the area of tubewell No. 32 from 1970-78, as such no water could have been supplied to the said khasra numbers of the original complainant on 11/12.12.1978 and as such there was no occasion for the accused appellant to enter in the register the amount for payment of irrigation for the said land as the same did not fall within its territory, as such even the demand of amount of bribe as stated could not arise as the same is only acceptable if there is a threat or coercion of doing some act but to avoid the same being done illegal gratification is demanded to facilitate someone. In the present case, since the land of the original complainant did not fall within the territory of tubewell No. 32 there was no question of its being irrigated by the said tubewell and an official payment being done for the same by entering the irrigation in the official register. The evidence of DW-1 Yudhveer Singh cannot be said to be taking side of the accused as firstly he is a government servant and secondly his evidence is based on government records being the five years register maintained by the government servant. Krishna Pal Singh the brother of Puran Lal PW-2 (the original complainant) is stated to be present at the time of demand of illegal gratification but he has not been produced as a witness in the trial. The incident in the present case is alleged to have taken place in the year 1978. Forty five years since then have passed. 28. Looking to the evidence of the defence witness and the five years register and its extract, the applicant deserves to be extended the benefit of doubt. 29. The judgment and order dated 05.09.1983 passed by the Special Judge (VII Additional Special Judge), Bareilly in Special Case No. 7 of 1980 (State of U.P. vs. Net Ram) is hereby set aside. The present appeal is allowed. 30. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is on bail. His bail bond is cancelled and sureties discharged. 31. Office is directed to transmit the lower court records along with the copy of this judgment to the trial court forthwith for its compliance and necessary action.