Hari Narayan vs State
2023 Latest Caselaw 2090 Raj/2

       HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
                   BENCH AT JAIPUR

                   S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 78/1985

Hari Narayan son of Rameshwar Prasad, Resident of Village
Antala Tehsil Bairath District Jaipur (at present L.D.C. under
Suspension in D.T.O. Sikar)
                                                                     ----Appellant
                                    Versus
State of Rajasthan
                                                                   ----Respondent

For Appellant(s)          :     Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Adv.
                                Mr. S. S. Sharma, Adv.
                                Ms. Priyanshi Katta, Adv.
For Respondent(s)         :     Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP

HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA Order

ORDER RESERVED ON :: 09.01.2023

ORDER PRONOUNCED ON :: 13.02.2023

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment &

order dated 28.01.1985/02.02.1985 passed by learned Special

Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No.15/1980, whereby

appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s)

punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with

Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as under :-

U/s 161 IPC - Three months simple imprisonment.

U/s     5(1) (d) r/w Three months simple imprisonment with
Section 5(2)    of the a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default of payment
Prevention           of of fine to undergo one month simple
Corruption Act, 1947    imprisonment.

Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

As per story of the prosecution, Sultanaram resident of

Dhani Rajwali Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, submitted a written report to

(2 of 4) [CRLA-78/1985]

the Dy. S.P. A.C.D. Sikar alleging that he had purchased the

tractor HMT Jeeter in his father's name on 02.05.1979 and he

wanted to change the registration of tractor. He submitted the

documents before D.T.O. and D.T.O. wrote an order and sent to

Hari Narain clerk. When he went to Hari Narain, he told him that

there was no work with him to be done. The D.T.O. would do.

Then again he went to Moolchand D.T.O. but Moolchand said that

Hari Narain would do it. Then he again went to Hari Narain and the

appellant Hari Narain told him that the complainant will have to

pay Rs.150/- (Rs.50/- for himself, Rs.50/- for Ashok Jain and

Rs.50/- for Moolchand D.T.O.). The complainant did not want to

give the bribe. So, he complained before the ACD. After

completion of trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet

was filed against the appellant.

After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against

the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read

with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him

and claimed for trial.

In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12

witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973. He prayed that he was innocent and

had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined 5

witnesses in his defence.

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial

court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and

Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of

Corruption Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant also

(3 of 4) [CRLA-78/1985]

submits that learned trial court had not read the prosecution

evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant

also submits that prosecution witnesses are highly interested, so,

their evidence was unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant

also submits that prosecution failed to prove the demand and

acceptance of bribe because evidence of the complainant

Sutanaram was contradictory and he had also submitted the

affidavit. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that

Investigating Officer wrongly investigated the case and left the

Moolchand and Ashok Jain. Learned counsel for the appellant also

submits that trial court wrongly framed the charges against the

appellant because as per the averments of the prosecution,

appellant had taken Rs.50/- for Ashok Jain and Rs.50/- for

Moolchand but charges framed against him were without

mentioning of these facts. Learned counsel for the appellant also

submits that there is no evidence that appellant had ever

demanded rupees from Sultanaram. So, appellant be acquitted.

Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon

the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of

P. Satyanarayana Murthy Vs. District Inspector of Police,

State of Andhra Pradesh & Anr. reported in (2015) 10 SCC

152.

Learned Public Prosecutor has opposed the arguments

advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and submitted that

there is no illegality or infirmity in the judgment and order of

learned trial court. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merits and liable

to be dismissed.

(4 of 4) [CRLA-78/1985]

I have considered the arguments advanced by learned

counsel for the appellant as well as learned Public Prosecutor.

As per the story of prosecution, Rs.150/- were given by

Sultanaram to the appellant but prosecution failed to prove the

demand and acceptance of the bribe. Only recovery of money

could not be a ground to consider it as a bribe. Investigating

Officer deliberately left Ashok Jain and Moolchand. Learned trial

court in its order mentioned about these lacuna. So, in my

considered opinion, learned trial court wrongly convicted the

appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with

Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Hence,

the judgment and order of the learned trial court deserves to be

set aside.

Accordingly, this appeal is allowed. Impugned

judgment/order passed by the learned trial Court dated

28.01.1985/02.02.1985 is set aside. Appellant is acquitted of the

charges framed against him.

In view of the provisions of Section 437-A Code of Criminal

Procedure, 1973, appellant-Hari Narayan son of Rameshwar

Prasad is directed to furnish a personal bond in the sum of

Rs.25,000/-, and a surety in the like amount, before the Registrar

(Judicial) of this Court, which shall be effective for a period of six

months, with stipulation that in the event of Special Leave Petition

being filed against this judgment or on grant of leave, the

appellant aforesaid, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear

before the Hon'ble Supreme Court.

(NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA),J

Jatin /93

Powered by TCPDF (www.tcpdf.org)