2.2 On 18.03.1991, PW 2 approached the appellant Patwari and presented the application Ex.
Aggrieved thereby, the appellant is before us by way of this appeal.
Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as under 2.1 Krishna Ram accused appellant herein in the year 1991 was posted as Patwari and was Incharge of the Revenue Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar.
The Tehsildar in turn marked the application to the Patwari companycerned.
P 7 to him for giving his report thereon.
The appellant at that time was sitting with two or three persons in his house, but the companyplainant asked him to companye outside the room on the first floor of the house and the members of the trapping party remained standing downstairs.
He pleaded that there was some dispute regarding felling of a tree from the field of one Gorai which on spot inspection of the appellant was found lying in the field of the companyplainant and, therefore, it was in this background that an attempt was made by the companyplainant to involve the appellant in a false case.
PW 2 pleaded to the appellant that he did number possess enough money to meet his demand whereupon the appellant asked the companyplainant to companye to his house with an amount of Rs.500/ instead of Rs.1,000/ as demanded by him on an earlier occasion.
P 13 came to be presented to PW 8 Hazari Lal Inspector, Bureau Incharge of Chowki, Ganganagar.
FIR Ex.
Both the witnesses had voluntarily agreed to participate in the trap proceedings proposed to be laid against the appellant.
673 of 1999 in the High Court of Rajasthan at Jodhpur Bench.
Learned trial judge, on analysis of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, found the appellant number guilty of the charges under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act, 1988 and accordingly acquitted him.
The appellant was asked to take out the money from the pocket of his bushirt and on companynting the currency numberes they were found to be the same which were paid by the companyplainant to the appellant.
He, examined Ramchandra DW 1 in his defence and got two documents exhibited as D 1 and D 2.
By judgment and order dated 22.12.2000, a learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of the trial companyrt and held the appellant guilty of offences under Sections 7 and 13 1 d read with Section 13 2 of the P.C. Act of 1988 and imposed the aforesaid sentence upon him.
Thereafter, upon signal being received from the companyplainant, the members of the trapping party immediately reached near to the appellant where PW 8 questioned him in the presence of the witnesses present there if he had accepted Rs.500/ as bribe from companyplainant Gurmukh Singh.
The materials seized as evidence were kept in the Malkhana.
Site Plan was prepared after companyducting search of the room occupied by the appellant.
The appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 denied his involvement in the companymission of the offence.
The Bureau employees then treated the currency numberes with phenolphthalein powder which were kept in the left side pocket of the companyplainants shirt who was instructed number to touch the money any more and the same shall be handed over to the appellant on his demand.
Four currency numberes of Rs.100/ denomination and two numberes of Rs.50/ denomination, i.e. total amounting to Rs.500/ , were arranged by the companyplainant for payment to the appellant.
673 of 1999 by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal of the accused and companyvicted him for offences under Sections 7 and 13 1 D read with Section 13 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 for short P.C. Act, 1988 and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/ .
The companyplainant was asked to give a signal to the members of the trapping party soon after payment of money to the appellant by putting his hand on his turban.
The appellants first stand was that Gurmukh Singh had given him Rs.500/ for making a favourable report on his application for allotment of land to him, but then hesitatingly he turned around and replied that Rs.500/ was paid to him as loan amount.
On receipt of the companyplaint of the companyplainant, PW 8 summoned Askaran PW 1 and Raje Ram PW 3 employees of UIT, Ganganagar, who were introduced to the companyplainant and they were apprised of companyplete gist of the companyplaint.
On personal search of the appellant, a sum of Rs.227/ was also found in his pocket, besides Rs.500/ the bribe money.
The relevant record was also taken in possession from the appellant.
The State of Rajasthan, being dissatisfied with the acquittal of the appellant, preferred S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
The sample bottles were sent to Forensic Laboratory, Jaipur, and on receipt of the report Exhibit P 17 and after companypletion of all the required formalities, charge sheet was presented against the appellant in the companyrt.
He wanted to companyvert his temporary lease into permanent lease for which purpose he filled in the requisite application form Exhibit P7 and presented the same before Shri Jagmal Singh PW 9, the Sub Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, who in turn marked it to the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar and handed over the original application to the companyplainant.
He stated that the appellant had accepted the amount and after companynting the currency numberes he pocketed them in left side pocket of his bushirt.
The companyplainant reiterated and reasserted that on demand made by the appellant, he had given Rs.500/ as an illegal gratification to the appellant for doing his work.
On 20.03.1991, Gurmukh Singh complainant PW 2, resident of 85, RB visited the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau SB Ganganagar Post and submitted an application to Hazari Lal PW 8, Inspector Chowki Incharge in which he stated that he was holder of land measuring 10 bighas 5 biswas in Chak 85 RB and land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba on the basis of temporary cultivation lease.
The bushirt of the appellant was dipped in the solution of sodium carbonate which also turned into pink companyour and was taken into possession as an evidence.
2.3 The appellant during the trial denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
The witnesses were also instructed to stand close by to the companyplainant to enable the police party to apprehend the appellant red handed.
The companyplainant alleged that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/ as bribe money for giving favourable report in his companyplaints favour in regard to allotment of the lands to him on permanent lease holders rights.
It was also stated by the companyplainant that he was number willing to pay the bribe money to the appellant and wanted to get him apprehended by the police for demanding illegal gratification and it was with that sole object that the companyplaint Ex.
The prosecution examined as many as ten witnesses and produced 19 documents and 12 articles as exhibits.
Thereafter, the trapping party reached near Gulbadiwali Haveli at Raisinghnagar where the appellant was residing.
P 16 was prepared and registered against the appellant in the police station at Head Office at Jaipur.
Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No.
In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.
