Clerk Accused Of Taking ₹150 Bribe Acquitted By Rajasthan High Court After 38 Years
The Rajasthan High Court recently acquitted a clerk of District Transport Office (D.T.O.), Sikar who was convicted by the trial court in a bribery case of Rs. 150/- in the year 1985 and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment.Single judge bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha held:“As per the story of prosecution, Rs.150/- were given by Sultanaram to the appellant...
The Rajasthan High Court recently acquitted a clerk of District Transport Office (D.T.O.), Sikar who was convicted by the trial court in a bribery case of Rs. 150/- in the year 1985 and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment.
Single judge bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha held:
“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."
The bench added that the investigation was not done properly and the Investigating Officer had deliberately left out two others for whom the bribe was allegedly demanded.
"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,” it said.
The complainant- Sultanaram in his written complaint stated that Hari Narain (appellant), a clerk at D.T.O. Sikar, asked the complainant to pay Rs.150/- (Rs.50/- for himself, Rs.50/- for Ashok Jain and Rs.50/- for Moolchand D.T.O.) for changing the registration of a tractor of the complainant.
After completion of trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.
The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellant to 3 months of simple imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 vide judgement and order dated 28.01.1985/02.02.1985.
The counsel for the appellant argued that prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe because evidence of the complainant Sutanaram was contradictory.
It was further contended by the appellant that Investigating Officer wrongly investigated the case and left the Moolchand and Ashok Jain 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.
Case Title: Hari Narayan v. State of Rajasthan
Citation: 2023 LiveLaw (Raj) 9
Coram: Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha