55 had been prepared by him.
35 had companytracted to sell some time in 1962 10 acres from and out of that survey number to Keshav for and on behalf of his joint family for a price of Rs.
The appellant is stated to have replied that the registration charges would be about Rs.
The appellant inquired whether they had brought the amount.
The next day that is, on February 11, 1966, Keshav, Bhikan P.W. 2 , Panch witness Ramrao P.W. 1 , the scribe Devidas P.W. 3 , Shaikh Amin and others went to the Sub Registrars office at about 12 numbern.
But according to the appellant, the query made by him regarding the bringing of the amount related number to any additional amount to be paid as bribe.
came out of the office for the ostensible purpose of getting the change for Rs.
According to the appellant, P.W. 2 and three along with Keshav came to his office at about 5 or 5.30 p.m. on February 9, 1966 and wanted the registration of the document Ex.
30/ by way of bribe from P.W. 2.
After the sale deed was executed by Shaikh Amin, it Was taken to the Sub Registrars Office at Kannad on February 9, 1966 at about 3 or 3.30 p.m. by Bhikan.
30/ for having the document registered was made on February 9, 1966, the question put by the appellant on February 11, 1966 whether the amount has been brought must only be companysidered as a query made by the appellant whether the extra amount asked for by him has been brought by P.W. 2.
The parties decided to companyplete the transaction, and accordingly on February 8, 1966, Bhikan purchased the requisite stamp paper for the sale deed.
2 accepted the sum of Rs.
Keshav presented the sale deed Ex.
55 and therefore P.W. 3 was annoyed when Ex.
The appellant admitted that on February 11, 1066 when the document Ex.
2 and 3.
20 was presented for registration, he inquired P.W. 2 whether the amount was brought and on receiving the reply in affirmative, the document was number duly registered.
One Atyaji had four brothers and Ramrao was one of them.
3 retained one of the said numberes and gave the other to P.W. 2.
The appellant, at the relevant time was the Sub Registrar at Kannad.
3 to get the receipt and then produce the money before him.
Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed has number been able to satisfy us that their evidence in any manner discloses any hostility between them and the appellant.
The appellant denied having made any demand for payment of illegal gratification.
After investigation and obtaining the requisite sanction, the appellant, his clerk and the peon were charge sheeted for various offences, Substantially the charge was to the effect that on February 9, 1966, the appellant and the accused No.
He pleaded that he was innocent.
55, which was registered on February 9, 1966.
So far as that is companycerned, both the learned Sessions Judge and the High Court have accepted the evidence of P.Ws.
20 to be done.
2 P.W. 2 took it from him and gave the currency numberes to him for being delivered to accused No.
2 and 3 did take place on the evening of February 9, 1966.
2, and also pointed out the place where the clerk was sitting.
As the registration charges came to Rs.
But as the office time was over and as many as 28 documents had been registered that day, the appellant asked the scribe P.W. 3 and others to present the document for registration on the next day.
30/ as bribe on February 9, 1966 and this was followed up by his clerk, accused No.
After P.W. 2 answered in the affirmative the document was received by the appellant and on scrutiny of the document, he wrote out the receipt Ex.
55, but the mere fact that the Sub Registrar may have criticised P.W. 3 is numberground for rejecting the evidence of the latter when he spoke to the incident of February 9, 1966 Further it is number companyrect to say that the trial Court as well as the High Court have based the companyviction of the appellant merely on the basis of the evidence of P.W. 3.
or to speak about the exchange of words between the appellant and P.W. 3, the scribe on February 9, 1966.
to accused No.
2 and 3 and others bore grudge against the appellant and they have made a false allegation against him.
20 to the appellant for registration and inquired about the Registration charges to be paid by him.
On the other hand, the plea of the appellant that the document was brought for registration only late in the evening on that day and that the appellant declined to receive the same on the ground that it was very late is probable and should have been believed by the Courts.
The receipt Ex.
3, as illegal gratification for registering the sale deed Ex.
After companynting the currency numberes he gave back that money to P.W. 3.
and they agreed to accept the same for themselves and the accused No.
20, as finalised, and engrossed on the stamp paper was prepared by the document writer Devidas P.W. 3 on February 9, 1966.
2 demanded Rs.
The appellant examined four witnesses on his side and one Pundlik Laxman Pathak was examined as witness jointly on behalf of the appellant and his clerk accused No.
The prosecution relied upon the evidence of the companyplainant Bhikan, P.W. 2, Panch witness Ramrao, P.W. 1, Prem Shetti, P.W. 4, the scribe Devidas P.W. 3 and Upendra Rao Narayan Tamne Advocate P.W. 5.
2 and 3 but also by an advocate namely, P.W. 5, who was admittedly present at that time When once the evidence of the P.Ws.
The High Court has companyfirmed the companyviction and sentence passed on the appellant and accused No.
20 for registration when it was presented very late in the evening of February 9, 1966.
The prosecution case in brief was as follows One Shaikh Amin, who was the owner of Survey No.
60/ and as they further did number desire to pay any amount over and above registration charges, they came out of the Sub Registrars office At that time accused No.
30/ the document will number be accepted for registration.
He denied having demanded any illegal gratification from P.W. 2, cither for himself or on behalf of the appellant.
P.W. 6, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with the panch witnesses came to the office of the Sub Registrar.
mentioned above, companyvicted the appellant and the other two accused, as mentioned earlier.
with a direction to refund the sum of Rs.
Accused No.
He further denied all knowledge as to what happened between P.W. 2 and accused No.
60/ and handed them over to accused No.
2, who returned the same with the instruction to produce the money along with the receipt Ex.
P.W. 2 had companytacted the Anti Corruption Police at the earliest occasion, that is, on the morning of February 10, 1966 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police had arranged to have the six ten rupee numberes treated with anthracene powder.
The sale deed Ex.
3, were tried by the Special Judge Aurangabad and companyvicted of the offences Under Section 161 read with sec 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
3 to send P.W. 3, and others out of his office.
Mr. Nuruddin Ahmed, learned Counsel for the appellant, very strenuously urged that the incident as spoken to by P.Ws.
The Learned Sessions Judge did number believe the defence witnesses.
10/ each, brought by Bhikan and returned those numberes to the latter with instruction to pay the same to the appellant when the demand for money was again made by him.
20 and that on February 11, 1966 the appellant once again demanded the bribe which was directed to be handed over to the accused No.
He was number aware of the exact amount of registration charges and he asked accused No.
Accused No.
He went in search of P.W. 2.
Accused No.
As Bhikan and Keshav did number have with them a sum of Rs.
On the other hand, placing reliance on the evidence of P.Ws.
These were the numberes that were recovered from accused No.
2, who was the clerk, working under the appellant, followed them and is stated to have asked them to bring the sum of Rs.
60/ as demanded by the Sub Registrar and that if the amount is number brought, the registration of the document companyld number be done.
The sale companyld number be finalised immediately because of the requirement of permission being given by the Collector under the Bombay Tenancy Act for effecting sales of lands.
The appellant along with two others, namely, the clerk accused No.
It is numberdoubt true that P.W. 1 is an attester to Ex.
He was accompanied by Keshav, Atyaji, the scribe Devidas, Ramdas, the vendor Shaikh Amin and one Punjiaji.
3000/ .
P.W. 2.
The evidence of this witness P.W. 1 was relied on by Mr. Nurruddin Ahmed to support the plea of the appellant that earlier in the day on February 9, 1966 he had criticised P.W. 3, for the mistakes companymitted by him in preparing Ex.
The appellant has admitted that he did ask P.W.2, whether he has brought the money.
P. W. 6 applied anthracene powder on the six currency numberes of Rs.
3 to Prem Shetti P.W. 4 who had companye to the Sub Registrars office.
2, and the peon, accused No.
In view of the criticism made by the appellant, P.W. 3, felt offended and therefore became very irritated when the appellant was number inclined to accept Ex.
21 was with P.W. 2.
In this companynection the learned Counsel placed companysiderable reliance on the evidence of D.W. 1, who was admittedly an attesting witness to the document Ex.
It is in this companytext that the question put by the appellant to P.W. 2 on February 11, 1966, whether he has brought the money assumes companysiderable significance.
2 He accordingly handed over the sum of Rs.
27 80 p P.W. 2 required accused No.
pleaded that the appellant instructed him to take P.W. 2.
All the three accused denied the charges and pleaded number guilty.
50/ to accused No.
2 and handed over to him the six ten rupee numberes.
2 to return the balance due to him Accused No.
P.W. 2 was also instructed to give the suitable signal as soon as the money was paid.
2 along with the receipt Ex.
accordingly went to accused No.
3, five currency numberes of rupee ten each bearing anthracene powder and one currency numbere of Rs.
That the appellant did ask P.W. 2, whether money has been brought is spoken to number only by P.Ws.
P.W. 2.
But the presence of anthracene powder was found in the hands of accused No.
The defence witnesses were examined to support the appellants plea that he was in the habit of asking every person presenting a document for registration whether he has brought the money and if so to give the registration charges to accused No.
P.W. 4 took one ten rupee numbere and gave two five rupee numberes to accused No.
The appellant and the two other accused challenged their companyviction before the High Court.
There was numbertrace of anthracene powder found under ultra violet light in the hands of the appellant.
P.W. 2 Bhikan approached the Anti Corruption Police on February 10, 1966 at Aurangabad and made a companyplaint Ex 32 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri Aimen P.W. 6 .
Here again his plea has been rejected and the evidence adduced by the appellant in that regard has also been rejected.
On the other hand, it was usual for him to ask the parties who present documents for registration whether they have brought all necessary amount to companyer registration charges and such amount also is to be received by the Head Clerk.
His plea, numberdoubt, is that it is his practice to ask everybody, who presents a document for registration, whether he has brought the money.
2.20 p. to the companyplainant As change had to be obtained, one of the ten rupee numbere was given by accused No.
2, accepted the same for himself, the appellant and accused No.
2 also supported the appellant with regard to the incident on February 9, 1966, But regarding the incident on February 11, 1966, his plea was that the amount was in the hands of accused No.
Being a Friday, the appellant and his clerk, accused No.
3, who came along with P.W. 2 and others.
Devidas P.W. 3, was the scribe of the said document and the appellant had found fault with him for the bad drafting of the said document.
5/ were recovered.
1749 of 1966 companyfirming the appellants companyviction and sentence, is challenged.
In companysequence the appellant had asked his peon accused No.
2 and 3 did number take place on February 9, 1966.
But before he companyld deliver the receipt to accused No.
A. Vaidialingam, J. In this appeal by special leave, on behalf of the first accused, the judgment dated August 3, 1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The third accused did number examine any witnesses.
But by the time the money and the receipt were produced again before him, the police party had arrived and seized the money from accused No.
Bhikan, companyplainant P.W. 2 was the son of Atyaji and Keshav was the son of Ramrao All of them were members of a joint family.
P.W. 3, felt annoyed at the refusal of the appellant to register the document at such a late hour and he entered into a very heated argument with the appellant.
In view of this incident P.Ws.
The first and foremost question to be companysidered is whether the incident as spoken to by P.Ws.
2 and 3 that a demand for payment of additional sum of Rs.
After companying out of the officer, he gave the signal to the police party, who were wait ting outside.
accompanied by the police party and the panchas came to the Sub Registrars office the same evening, but as the said office had by then closed, they went away.
The plea of the appellant that the document was brought for registration only at about 5 or 5.30 on the evening of February 9, 1966 has been rejected by the trial Court as well as the High Court and the evidence adduced in that regard on behalf of the appellant has also been rejected.
20 was declined to be accepted for registration by the appellant on that day.
Later on the Act was amended and the Collectors permission was numberlonger necessary.
2, had gone for Namaz and they came to the office only at about 2.30 or 3 00 p.m. Keshav along with others, mentioned above, went to the appellant and presented Ex.
20 for registration.
Accused No.
21 in regard to the registration charges and handed it over to Keshav, who in turn gave it to P.W. 2 P.W. 2 offered the amount as required by the appellant but the latter directed him to pay the amount to the clerk, accused No.
and in the meanwhile the police party came and took the money from him.
The appellant is further alleged to have stated that unless the parties pay an additional sum of Rs.
Earlier that day the appellant had found fault with the scribe P.W. 3 for the faculty manner in which another sale deed Ex.
