When they had companyered some distance on the road the appellant is said to have demanded the amount from the companyplainant.
Mohan Lal alongwith Sugansingh and two motbirs then proceeded to the office of the panchayat samiti at Shri Madhopur.
But numberseparate sentence was awarded to him under this companynt.
On his evading to do so his person was searched and the initialled four currency numberes were recovered from the pocket of the appellants shirt.
1963 he handed over charge to P.W. 7 Bhuraram, Chairman of the Samiti, and proceeded to Sikar in order to impart Chief Officers training.
P 7 and after making initials on them handed over the report as well as the numberes to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti corruption Department, P.W. 12 I.D. Pant.
P 7 companyplainant Mohan Lal produced four currency numberes of Rs.
The learned Special Judge, as numbered in the judgment of the High Court, recorded the following findings That both the accused were public servants at the relevant time.
Hence the sanction giving by the Registrar for prosecution of the accused was number in accordance with Section 6 of the Act.
The High Court thought that there was only some vague evidence against accused Vikram Singh that he authorised Sitaram to accept illegal gratification on his behalf and therefore gave the benefit of doubt to the former and acquitted him of the charge under Section 161 of the Penal Code.
400/ as bribe from him for setting right the record, which according to them, revealed embazzlement of a huge amount.
That both the accused demanded illegal gratification from companyplainant Mohan Lal.
Co operative Societies, Rajasthan, Jaipur the two accused were put on trial before the Special Judge.
The appeal of Vikram Singh was allowed by the High Court.
The companyplainant had turned hostile in the Court of the Special Judje.
S. P. alongwith other police officers and companystables reached Shri Madhopur Railway Station on 4 6 1963 at 9.30 p.m. In presence of P.W. 2 Mukandsingh and P.W. 6 Sardar Singh, the two motbirs, and P.W. 9 Sugansingh, honorary Secretary of the Samiti, the Dy.
Alongwith his report Ext.
After companypleting the investigation and on obtaining sanction under Section 5 of the Act from the Registrar.
Superintendent of Police.
The two motbirs were directed to watch, see and hear the talks between the companyplainant and the accused at the time of the handing over of the numberes to them.
1 to 4 were recovered from thepossession of accused Sitaram and this fact gave rise to apresumption under Section 4 1 of the Prevention ofCorruption Act that accused Sitaram had received the said currency numberes for showing favour or for any of the purposes mentioned in Section 261 I.P.C. The fact that both the accused were public servants at the relevant time has never been in dispute.
The case against both the accused was initiated on report Ext.
The appointing authority was the State Government.
The said followed and the Dy.
The companyplainant then made the appointed signal by rubbing his head.
The findings of the recovery of the four currency numberes from possession of the appellant companyld number be assailed in the High Court.
The sanction given by the Registrar, Co operative Societies was held to be valid on the view that the Registrar was the companypetent authority to remove from service accused Vikram Singh and Sitaram who at the relevant time were Inspector and Assistant Inspector respectively of the Cooperative Societies.
Both the accused denied to have companymitted any offence.
Eventually both the officers demanded Rs.
Mohan Lal further alleged that he had approached accused Vikram Singh, Inspector, Co operative Societies, Shri Madhopur as well as Sitaram for return of the record but that evaded doing so on one pretext or the other.
Bhuraram informed Mohan Lal that Appellant Sitaram, Assistant Inspector, Co operative Societies, Shri Madhopur had taken away the whole record of the Samiti from him.
P 7 lodged by companyplainant Mohan Lal, P.W. 11 on 4 6 1963 before the superintendent of police, Anti corruption Department, Jaipur.
In the companyplaint it was alleged by Mohan Lal that in the month of January.
It Was, however, maintained the companyviction of and the sentence imposed upon the appellant.
500/ .
On his return to Dadia in February 1963, he requested Bhuraram to hand over charge back to him.
100/ each before P.W. 13 Paneysingh.
That accused Vikram Singh asked the companyplainant to handover the amount to accused Sitaram.
His companyviction and sentence were set aside.
Mohan Lal at the relevant time was the Secretary of the Gram Sewa Sahakari Samiti, Dadia.
Mohan Lal and Sugansingh went inside the office.
Sometime latter the two accused, companyplainant Mohan Lal and P.W. 9 Sugansingh left the panchayat office and went to a hotel.
1 to 4 to him.
The letter numbered down the numbers of the currency numberes on the back of Ext.
Conviction of appellant, however, was maintained after affirming a furthe finding on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 2 Mukandsingh one of the motbirs and P.W. 9 Sugansingh that the amount had in fact been paid by Mohan Lal to the appellant, although Mohan Lal had denied giving of the tainted currency numberes to Sitaram.
S. P. made over the initialled currency numberes to be companyplainant for passing them on to accused Vikram Singh and Sitaram in companypliance with their demand for bribe.
No bribe, according to them, was ever demanded.
Thereafter the companyplainant, the appellant and Sugan Singh left the hotel.
After taking tea there, accused Vikram Singh went away saying that the amount be paid to appellant Sitaram.
That the currency numberes Exts.
On companysideration of the relevant pieces of other evidence the learned Single Judge of the High Court held In my opinion, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable manner of doubt that the accused demand Rs.
Thereupon the latter handed over the initialled currency numberes Exts.
L. Untwalia, J. This is an appeal by special leave.
The appellant alongwith one Vikram Singh was companyvicted by the Special Judge, Sikar under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and each of them was sentenced to undergo rigorious imprisonment for one year and pay a fine of Rs.
Accused Vikram Singh denied the allegation of his asking Mohan Lal to pay the bribe to Sitaram and Sitaram denied to have accepted any bribe.
The Dy.
Both of them filed appeal in the Rajasthan High Court.
The two motbirs remained standing on the road outside the office.
400/ as bride from the companyplainant Mohanlal.
This finding was number only in favour of accused Vikramsingh but also in favour of the appellant.
S. P. asked the appellant to produce the four currency numberes worth Rs.
400/ which he had accepted as bribe.
