When the appellant and Ram Raj had proceeded about 3 or 4 furlongs on the way to Santrook, Head Constable Ram Singh and his companypanions stopped them and checked the cart.
The prosecution case was that on the night between 13th and 14th November 1966, Head Constable Ram Singh and four other police companystables, viz.,
One Ram Raj was driving the cart while the appellant was sitting in the cart on the bags of gram.
Ram Raj was driving the cart and he was sitting in the cart on the bags of gram.
Kishan Singh, Fateh Singh, Hira Lal and Sunder Singh, all attached to police station Sawar, were on patrolling duty in the area of the 10 mile belt with a view to preventing smuggling of grains from Rajasthan to Uttar Pradesh.
40 or Rs.
Head Constable Ram Singh thereafter investigated the case, but it appears that sometimes in the beginning of April 1967 it came to his numberice that he was number authorised to do so and he thereupon forwarded the papers to the Deputy Superintendent of Police on 4th April 1967.
Head Constable Ram Singh and his companypanions stopped the cart and checked it and on finding that it carried six bags of gram, Head Constable Ram Singh asked the appellant to produce the permit for transport but the appellant companyld number produce any such permit.
The cart was loaded with six bags of gram weighing about 14 to 15 maunds.
He then prepared a report Ex.
P 5 at the police station in which he showed himself as the informant or companyplainant arid the appellant and Ram Raj were shown to have companymitted an offence under Section 161 of the I.P.C. for offering Rs.
Two persons by the name of Ramji Lal and Om Prakash had arrived on the scene by that time and they witnessed this incident.
There was at the material time, in force, Rajasthan Foodgrains Restrictions on Border Movements Order 1959 which imposed a ban on transport of foodgrains to any place within the area of this 10 mile belt from any place outside that area except under and in accordance with a permit issued by the State Government or by any officer authorised by that Government in this behalf.
Head Constable Ram Singh also lodged a First Information Report Ex.
The appellant and Rain Raj submitted that in the circumstances, they had number companymitted any offence under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code.
Head Constable Ram Singh declined to accept the bribe offered by the appellant and seized the currency numberes of Rs.
The appellant showed the permit to Head Constable Ram Singh but the latter ignored it saying that it had numbervalue and asked the appellant to settle their Hisab Kitab, i.e. to pay them some money by way of bribe.
P 1 in the presence of the other four police companystables.
Mahmood and Ramji Lal.
The prosecution examined Head Constable Ram Singh and the other four police companystables who deposed substantially in favour of the prosecution case against the appellant and Ram Raj.
P 2 were then taken to the police station and weighed there and their weight was numbered down under a memo Ex P.3.
However, when he reached Suthra his cart broke down and he had, therefore, to take the cart of Ram Raj on hire and in that cart he started from Suthra at about 6 or 7 p.m. on 13 11 1966.
D 1 which was issued in favour of the appellant on 28th October 1966 while Ramji Lal in his evidence supported the defence version of the appellant and Ram Raj.
P 4 and sent it to the Police Station Sewar with police companystable Hira Lal.
510 as bribe to him.
This order was issued under Section 3 of the Essential Commodities Act, 1955, and any companytravention of this provision was punishable under Section 7 of that Act.
P 2 and arrested the appellant as well as Ram Raj who was driving the cart.
Mahmood proved the permit Ex.
Head Constable Ram Singh refused to accept the bribe whereupon the appellant took out a bundle of currency numberes of Rs.
The appellant entrusted Head Constable Ram Singh to let him go and offered to pay him a bribe of Rs.
510 which was found on his person on taking search.
Hence, the present appeal with special leave obtained from this Court.
The appellant refused to pay any bribe, Head Constable Ram Singh and his companypanions thereupon arrested the appellant and Ram Raj and snatched away from the appellant a bundle of currency numberes of Rs.
Ram Raj was, however, more fortunate, as the learned Special judge took the view that there was numberevidence to show that he had taken any part in the offer of bribe to Head Constable Ram Singh and he was accordingly acquitted by the learned Special Judge.
Two other persons of Bilothi who were going to Bharatpur also happened to companye there and they too saw this incident.
510 under a seizure memo Ext.
Significantly, numberindependent witness was examined on behalf of the prosecution.
He also seized the six bags of gram found on the cart under a seizure memo Ex.
The learned Special judge accepted the evidence led on behalf of the prosecution and almost ignoring the evidence of Ramji Lal who had deposed in favour of the appellant and Ram Raj, held that the prosecution against the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant was guilty of an offence under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code.
The six bags of gram which were seized under a seizure memo Ex.
The companymon defence of the appellant and Ram Raj was that the appellant had a valid permit dated 28th October 1966 for transporting 20 quintals of gram by road from Bharatpur to Santrook for seed purposes within 15 days from the date of issue of the permit and armed with this permit he had started on 11th November 1966 in a cart with six bags of gram from Dhromiu for going to Santrook which was the village where he lived and worked.
510 from the Antan of his dhoti and offered them to Head Constable Ram Singh as bribe.
The Appellant being aggrieved by the order of companyviction and sentence passed against him, preferred an appeal to the High Court of Rajastan.
The appellant and Ram Raj put forward their defence in the statements given by them under Section 342 of the CrPC and sought to substantiate their defence by leading the evidence of two witnesses, viz.,
The appellant and Ram Raj were then taken to the police station and according to them, all the memos Exhibits P 1 to P 4 were prepared at the police station.
The incident giving rise to the prosecution against the appellant took place within an area in the State of Rajasthan lying within a 10 mile belt along the border of that State adjoining the State of Uttar Pradesh.
N. Bhagwati, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against an order passed by the High Court of Rajasthan companyfirming the companyviction and sentence recorded against the appellant by the Special Judge, Bharatpur, under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code.
The Deputy Superintendent of Police then re investigated the case and ultimately filed the charge sheet against the appellant and Ram Raj under Section 165A of the Indian Penal Code in the Court of the special Judge, Bharatpur.
