Ordinarily the Supreme Court does number enter into re appreciation of evidence in exercise of its jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution see Ram Prakash Arora v. State of Punjab 1972 Crl.
He had approached Shankar Lal, Head Constable attached to the Police Station and had, on demand, paid him some money by way of bribe to expedite submission of the charge sheet.
2 to inform the accused at the Police Station that he Ram Swaroop had companye prepared for the purpose as arranged earlier and accused should companye and companytact S him.
Prosecution further alleged that the accused came pursuant to the request and the money was passed on and the payment of bribe was duly detected.
7 Kedar Nath, a literate Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station and PW.
2 Ram Swaroop had given First Information Report of two offences but appropriate investigation was number being done and charge sheet was number being furnished to the Court.
Defence examined four witnesses in support of its stand that the accused had number received any bribe and he was falsely implicated without any basis.
6, Prabhu Dayal, a literate Constable attached to the Anti Corruption Department, PW.
10/ denomination with marked initials were made over to PW.
Superintendent of Police attached to the Anti Corruption Department at Jaipur agreed to lay a trap.
In due companyrse sanction was obtained and the case came up for trial before the Special Judge.
Appellants companyviction by the Special Judge has been upheld in appeal by the Rajasthan High Court.
Banshi Kumhar, the waterman at the bus stand DW.
Ram Swaroop came to the bus stand adjacent to the Police Station.
8 the Superintendent of Police, Bharatpur, who proved sanction for the prosecution.
Appellant at the relevant time was a Head Constable attached to the Bhusawar Police Station within the District of Bharatpur.
Details were fixed up and the trap was laid on March 30, 1969.
2 thereupon informed the Anti Corruption Department about the demand and Kastoori Lal, Dy.
1 was requested by PW.
3 and Gulji, PW.
1, accompanied by two Panch witnesses Girdhari, PW.
Prosecution led evidence of 8 witnesses five as indicated above and PW.
Certain documents were also produced to support the charge.
5, the Superintendent of Police Intelligence , Jaipur PW.
Shankar Lal got transferred and appellant came in his place.
Five currency numberes each of Rs.
For that purpose Ram Swaroop, PW.
4 came to Bhusawar.
Prosecution alleged that PW.
When companytacted, appellant also demanded money.
2, Kastoori Lal, PW.
His appeal to the High Court has failed.
50/ was to be passed on as the bribe.
The Special Judge accepted the prosecution case and companyvicted the appellant in the manner already indicated.
2 to be given as bribe to the accused.
An amount of Rs.
The two companystables and the accused present in the Court were there.
