Case Title: Hari Narayan v. State of Rajasthan

The bench of Justice Narendra Singh Dhaddha acquitted a clerk of District Transport Office (D.T.O.), who was convicted by the trial court in a bribery case Rs. 150/- in the year 1985 and sentenced to undergo three months simple imprisonment.

The court was hearing the appeal challenging the judgment & order passed by the Special Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

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 in the appeal argued that learned trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective and that prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe because evidence of the complainant was contradictory. He also submitted 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.

After hearing the arguments of both the sides, the court held that “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. Investigating Officer deliberately left Ashok Jain and Moolchand. 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.”

Story Update By: Ms. Sai Sushmitha, Correspondent at Lawgic

Edited By: Ms. Nandini Nair, Content-Head at Lawgic