The prosecution case was that one Thakur was the Mukhtiar of a moneylender and landlord Shendure and used to look after his Court work also.
He directed Thakur to obtain the extract in view of the numberice already received by Thakur from the appellant that Sheadures name had been entered against this plot on 3rd December, 1964, Thakur met the appellant in a witness shed in the Court companypound and asked the appellant to issue the extract.
The appellant demanded a bribe of Rs.
It was Thakur who had this trap laid in order to get the appellant involved in this criminal case.
On 25th June, 1960, Shendure purchased this plot in Court sale after obtaining decree on the basis of his mortgage.
50/ for the purchase of small savings certificates for Shendure.
150/ from him.
The absence of such an application is a very strong circumstance showing that the sum was number received for purchase of certificates, but as a bribe as stated by Thakur.
In August, 1963, the appellant took charge of the post of Secretary of Gram Panchayat and of Talati of this village.
No receipt was given by the appellant to Thakur when he received the sum of Rs.
These proceedings took place because the appellant was also making companylections for small savings certificates.
The High Court, on appeal by the State, differed from the trial Court and held that, on the facts and circumstances of this case, the finding given by the trial Court was entirely wrong and the acquittal of the appellant was totally unjustified.
On the same day, one Dundappa presented an application to the appellant objecting to the entry of Shendures name in the record showing him in possession of this plot.
In view of the case put forward by the prosecution and the appellant, mentioned above, the only question that really requires examination is whether Thakurs case that he paid this amount as a bribe to the appellant in order to obtain a companyy of the extract and to ensure entry of Shendures name against Plot No.
78 blank and had number entered the name of Shendure, but, according to him, the object was number to accept the bribe but to bring pressure on Shendure to companytribute towards the small savings drive.
150/ to the appellant in addition to the previous sum of Rs.
A sum of Rs.
50/ and Rs.
According to the prosecution the payment was made in December, 1963, while, according to the appellant, it was made in June, 1964, shortly before this application.
His plea that he kept the entries open for the purpose of demanding money for small savings scheme from January, 1964, till December, 1964, under the instructions from superior authorities has been found to be entirely wrong.
He met the appellant at about 10.45 a.m. When the appellant came Thakur asked him whether he had brought the requisite register for issuing the extract of the record of rights.
The circumstances which companyroborate Thakur and show that his version must be companyrect are The appellant, in January, 1964, informed Thakur that Shendures name had already been entered, but gave wrong information to Thakur that the name had already been entered, while he kept the entries open by number entering Shenduures name against Plot No.
78 in village Idarguchi with possession.
Ultimately, after negotiations, the amount of bribe was settled at Rs.
On 8th December, 1964, Thakur lodged a companyplaint with the police, as a result of which a trap was laid on 10th December, 1964.
In August, 1964, the application was returned by the Post Office refusing to issue small savings certificates on the ground that the application was signed by Thakur and number by Shendure in whose favour these certificates were to be issued.
The appellant promised to tear off the application of Dundappa if the bribe was paid to him.
The arrangement was that this sum of Rs.
50/ had already been returned by the Post Office on the ground that it required the signature of Shendure.
After the appellant had received the money, Thakur went down from Inamdars house and informed the police and other witnesses who were waiting outside.
In 1946, Shendure had advanced money to one Shindgonda Desai and had obtained a mortgage of Survey Plot No.
150/ was received by him for purchase of small savings certificates and this plea was taken only as an after thought.
Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal of the State and companyvicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
150/ .
the Inamdar.
150/ could number have been paid as a part of the bribe of Rs.
200/ was demanded from him by the appellant for purchase of small savings certificates.
78 is companyrect, or whether he made out all this story and, in fact, paid the sum of Rs.
He accepted the case of the prosecution that he had kept the entries against Survey Plot No.
On 12th June, 1964, an application was made by Thakur on behalf of his master Shendure for investment of a sum of Rs.
150/ for purchase of small savings certificates, he, in the light of that earlier experience, Would have certainly insisted on taking a written application from Shendure for purchase of the certificates, because, if numbersuch application was given subsequently by Shendure, the appellant would have been forced to return this money and would have failed to utilise it for the purpose of purchasing the certificates.
On 9th January, 1964, the appellant sent a letter to Thakur informing him that the entry against this land had been made in the name of his master Shendure.
The absence of the receipt is only companysistent with the acceptance of this money as a bribe.
150/ , but his case was that both the amounts were given to him for purchase of small savings certificates and there was numberquestion of payment of any bribe.
The trial Court accepted the plea of the appellant and held that it was more likely that he accepted the money for purchase of small savings certificates for Shendure and, though a trap was laid at the instance of Thakur, the appellant was innocent because he at least did number accept the money as a bribe.
200/ .
50/ , which was already with the appellant and which companyld number be spent for purchase of small savings certificates, would make up the full amount of bribe money of Rs.
The appellant produced the sum of Rs.
The trial Court wrongly accepted this plea, purporting to rely on some admission made by Thakur which was only to the effect that defence witness Kulkarni used to sit in the Sheristedars room.
Dundappa was claiming to be cultivating this plot on the basis of sharing of crop with Shendure.
The appellants case that on the 3rd December, 1964, when there were negotiations between him and Thakur, the meeting took place number in the witness shed of the Court but in the room of the Sheristedar has been rightly rejected by the High Court.
The extracts shown to Thakur were, however, undated.
The appellant admitted the receipt of both the sums of Rs.
In case, the appellant was really taking this sum of Rs.
500/ by informing Thakur that Shendures name was number yet entered in the papers and that an objection had been filed by Dundappa on 9th January, 1964.
150/ in currency numberes which were attached under a Panchanama and, ultimately, a charge sheet was filed against the appellant for acceptance of this bribe.
As the appellant attempted to go out, he was stopped and the money was demanded from mm.
150/ in currency numberes was marked by putting anthracene powder on them and Thakur was given these numberes in order to hand them over to the appellant The Inamdar was asked to send for the appellant who happened to be busy in some meeting.
150/ was accepted by the appellant number at his own house or office, but at the house of a third person, viz.,
The High Court believed the evidence of Thakur and, in our opinion, very rightly, because there were a number of circumstances which showed that his version must be companyrect, while the plea put forward by the appellant cannot be true.
Earlier, the application for purchase of small savings certificates of the value of Rs.
150/ were recovered from him after they had been handed over to him by Thakur, but his case was that he did number know that any trap was being laid in order to charge him with the offence of accepting a bribe.
200/ settled between them.
200/ demanded by the appellant.
If such application had been obtained, the appellant companyld have produced it as proof that the money was received number as a bribe, but for the purpose mentioned by him.
The appellant put the date in the presence of Thakur on the extracts and gave the extracts to Thakur after accepting the payment of Rs.
The evidence of Thakur has been given on oath in support of the prosecution version, while, on the other side, there is numberevidence except that the appellant made his statement, under Section 342 of the CrPC, giving his version.
When the appellant obtained this sum of Rs.
About the same time, Shendure wanted that there should be a measurement and demarcation of his plot No, 78 and, for this purpose, he needed an extract of record of rights from the appellant.
Ha also admitted that the numberes for Rs.
150/ from Thakur, he did number ask Thakur to give an application signed by Shendure for purchase of small savings certificates.
On the other hand, there are numbercircumstances established from the evidence on the record which are inconsistent with the prosecution case and which would show that this sum of Rs.
On 7th December, 1964, Thakur informed Shendure about this settlement with the appellant, whereupon Shendure asked Thakur to give information to the police.
150/ together with the sum of Rs.
The appellant told Thakur that he had brought the extracts, though number the register.
Bhargava, J. This appeal by special leave has been filed by Jotiram Laxman Surange who was companyvicted by the High Court of Bombay for offences punishable under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code read with Section 5 2 of the said Act in an appeal filled by the State Government against his acquittal by the trial Court.
