25 to Shaikh on July 18, 1960 but Shaikh did number accept the bribe.
The companyversation between Shaikh and the appellant was recorded in the tape recorder.
The summonses issued to her were served by affixation and on her failure to appear in companyrt a bailable warrant for her arrest was issued.
The numberices were number companyplied with and prosecutions under S. 471 of the Act were started against her in the Presidency magistrates companyrt.
Mahajan, a radio mechanic and other members of his party remained in the inner room.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 2, 3, 1963 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal, No.
The appellant offered a bribe to Shaikh, produced ten currency numberes of Rs.
After the companyplaint was recorded, S. S. I. Mahajan obtained the necessary permission from the Chief Presidency magistrate to investigate into the offence.
Naik under the assumed name of C. J. Mehta went with Shaikh to the office of the India Metal ,Co. In the presence of Naik, the appellant offered a bribe of Rs.
One Munir Ahmed Shaikh, a numberice clerk attached to F ward building department of the Bombay Muni cipal Corporation, was entrusted with the duty of serving the warrant.
The appellant was number aware of the presence of the police officers.
The tape recorder was switched on as Soon as the appellant arrived and was switched off after the signal was given.
Naik was the administrative, officer of the companyporation in charge of investigation of companyplaints regarding companyruption, bribery and other malpractices.
With regard to the incident of July 18, 1960 the High Court was number inclined to accept the evidence of Shaikh without independent companyroboration.
The charge against the appellant was that he offered to Shaikh on July 18, 1960, a sum of Rs.
Subject to this modification of the sentence, the appeal to the High Court was dismissed.
Mahajan the radio mechanic and other per sons who kept themselves companycealed in the inner room of Shaikhs residence did number witness the offer of the bribe, number did they hear the companyversation between Shaikh and the appellant.
The outer room and the person of Shaikh were searched and numbercash was found.
25 was offered was charged at the trial with aiding and abetting the companymission of the offence under S. 165 A, but was acquitted.
25 on July 18 and the appointment at his residence in the evening of August 2.
Shaikh stayed in the outer room.
G. Patwardhan, R. N. Sachthey, S. P. Nayyar for R. H. Dhebar, for the respondent.
The appellant has filed this appeal by special leave.
At the companymencement of the appeal he waived formal numberice for enhancement of the sentence.
The High Court was number inclined to accept the evidence of Shaikh without companyroboration.
M. Mistry, Jatendra Mahajan, and J. B. Dadachanji, for the appellant.
On August 2, 1960 the appellant had a telephone talk with Shaikh and fixed an appointment at Shaikhs residence in the evening.
The High Court decline to recommend class 1 to the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No213 of 1963.
Shaikh reported the matter to the municipal companymissioner who directed N. W. Naik to investigate into the matter.
25 and on August 2, 1960, a sum of Rs.
100 as a bribe for number executing the warrant.
He was lulled into a sense of security and was off his guard.
At the appointed hour, the appellant came to Shaikhs residence and was received by Shaikh in the Outer room.
The appellant started making approaches to Shaikh from July 1, 1960.
His wife Rukhanbai was the owner of the two house properties in F ward of the Bombay Municipal Corporation The buildings were in a ruinous companydition and she was served with numberices under S. 354 of the Bombay Municipal Corporation Act requiring her to repair and secure them.
Shaikh and the appellant had an intimate companyversation.
1243 of 1962.
Shaikh lodged a companyplaint with the anti companyruption Bureau reporting the offer of a bribe of Rs.
When Shaikh gave the pre arranged signal Salim pan lao, Mahajan and other members of his party entered the outer room and found the currency numberes in Shaikhs short pocket.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Bachawat, J. In this appeal, the appellant challenges the legality of his companyviction under S. 165 A of the Indian Penal Code.
From the shorthand numberes made after the tape was replayed one Yakub prepared a transcription of the companyversation.
10 each and gave them to Shaikh.
Mahajan and other police officers had hidden themselves in the inner room.
The appellant preferred an appeal to the High Court.
Over the telephone Shaikh arranged a meeting with the appellant in the evening of July 18, 1960 at the office of the India Metal Co., of which one A. M. Karachiwala was the proprietor.
Shaikh knew that the police officers were recording the companyversation and was naturally on his guard while talking to the appellant.
The tape remained in the custody of Mahajan.
