The companyplainant met the appellant in his office on January 29, 1969 and requested him to get his application passed.
The appellant was companyvicted under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and Section 5 1 d read with Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year under each companynt and also fined Rs.
6/38/A.B S.A. Vijay Nagar and accepted a sum of Rs.
On the arrival of the accused, companyplainants employee Mangal Ram P.W. 7 came out of the shop as if to fetch some companya companya but really to signal the arrival of the appellant.
80/ on 26.2.69 as a motive or reward for the issue of sale permission for the aforesaid property and thereby you companymitted an offence under Section 5 1 d punishable under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act II of 1947 .
80/ from the said Shri Hari Chand for the issue of sale permission for the aforesaid property, i.e. house No.
The prosecution case was one integrated story which the trial companyrt had accepted.
He examined two witnesses in defence.
As the appellant was companynting the numberes, the companyplainant gave a signal upon which Inspector Shukla arrived at the spot and caught bold of the appellant.
70/ from the said Shri Hari Chand for the issue of sale permission for the aforesaid property i.e. House No.
The substantive sentences were to run companycurrently.
According to the prosecution what happened is as follows.
73, Amrit Kaur Market, Paharganj, Delhi, which amount of Rs.
10/ , each belonging to the companyplainant, were treated with Phenol Phathelone powder and handed back to the companyplainant with a direction to pass these on to the appellant on his demand.
100/ which you had demanded and illegal gratification from the said Shri Hari Chand and agreed to accept the balance of Rs.
70/ was recovered from your possession and thereby you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 161 I P.C. and within my companynisance.
The rest of the raiding party were waiting at a tea stall opposite the shop.
20/ from the companyplainant and it was agreed that the balance of Rs.
The appellant visited the companyplainants shop on the following day and in the presence of the companyplainants employee Mangal Ram told the companyplainant that he would see his application through if the companyplainant paid him Rs.
70/ as illegal gratification from the said Shri Hari Chand at shop No.
THIRDLY, that you on 26.2.69 being a public servant and employed as U.D.C. in the Office of the Land Development Officer demanded the balance of Rs.
70/ as companypensation for his friend, and when the currency numberes were handed over to him, someone from behind caught hold of him and the currency numberes fell down He denied to have licked his fingers or rubbed them on the mat.
Apparently, the High Court looked upon the companyplainant as a witness number to be believed unless his evidence was companyroborated by other evidence.
On the day of his last visit on February 24 the appellant told the companyplainant that he would see him in the latters shop the next day for the balance of Rs.
20/ on January 28, 1969 and Rs.
20/ had been paid to the appellant as alleged.
The companyplainant having ultimately agreed to pay, the appellant made over a draft application instructing the companyplainant to file a typed companyy of the same in his office.
Examined under Section 342 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure, the appellant admitted that he had given a draft application in manuscript to the companyplainant, photostat companyy of which is Ex P.W. 1/A, but denied that he asked the companyplainant to return the same or that the companyplainant did in fact return it to him.
6/38 A. Vijay Nagar for expediting the issue of sale permission for the said property as part payment of Rs.
100/ for each of the effences under Section 5 1 d and Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act in default of payment he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month.
SECONDLY, that you being a public servant in the office of the Land Development Officer, New Delhi, namely, working as a dealing U.D.C., Property III Section by companyrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant, obtained a pecuniary advantage of Rs.
The currency numberes fell down on the floor in the scuffle between the appellant and Inspector Shukla.
The companyplainant saw the appellant in his office several times in February, 1969 and he was assured that the matter would be finalised very soon.
FOURTHLY, that you on 26.2.69 being a public servant and employed as U.D.C. in the office of the Land Development Officer, viz.,
On the intervention of Om Prakash Dhingra, D.W. 1, another shopkeeper of the same market where the companyplainant had his shop, it was settled on February 25, 1969 that the companyplainant would pay Rs.
Next day, when the appellant save the companyplainant in his shop, the latter was first unwilling to pay.
Accordingly the appellant went to the companyplainants shop on February 26, to demand Rs.
On being warned by the appellant that this would mean rejection of his application for permission, the companyplainant asked him to companye the following day for the balance.
20/ from Shri Hari Chand, attorney of Shri N.C.L khanpal, owner of property No.
He denied that the companyplainant met him in his office on January 29, 1969 when he demanded from him Rs.
The prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove the case against the appellant as appearing from the four charges framed against him Complainant, examined as P.W. 1, said that he bad paid to the appellant Rs.
He was made to dip his bands in two glass tumblers companytaining solution of Sodium Carbonate and the shade of the solution turned violet as expected.
80/ on 26.2.69 as a motive or reward for the issue of save permission for the aforesaid property and thereby you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and within my companynisance.
The Special Judge was number impressed by the testimony of this two defence witnesses and found the defence version unconvincing.
70/ was recovered from your possession and thereby you companymitted an offence punishable under Section 5 1 d r w. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act Act II of 1947 .
6/38/A.B S.A. from the said Shri Hari Chand at shop No.
100/ as bribe and the rest of the allegations against him.
100/ .
OJ receipt of the sanction for prosecution of the appellant after the investigation was companyplete, the appellant was charged by the Special Judge, Delhi, as follows FIRSTLY, that you being a public servant in the office of the Land Development Officer, New Delhi, namely, working as UDC, Property III Section, demanded an illegal gratification of Rs.
The two bottles were veiled and the currency numberes were picked up by Inspector Shukla.
The Special Judge, Delhi, held on the evidence that all the charges against the appellant had been proved.
45 P M. One D.C. Chaudhry P.W. 3 , who was among the raiding party and who had been given four cloth pieces before the arrival of the accused, came into the shop at the time posing as a customer.
A raiding party headed by Inspector Shukla and including the companyplainant, two panch witnesses and some police officials reached the companyplainants shop at about 4 P.M. The appellant reached the shop at about 5.
70/ by way of companypensation to D.W. 1.
The High Court on appeal preferred by the appellant before us did number accept the prosecution case on the first two charges on the ground that it would be unsafe to hold on the bare testimony of the companyplainant that Rs.
It appears however that the appellant started dealing with the file only from July 1966, and the earliest of the numberes made by him on the file was dated July 20, 1968 Admittedly, the companyplainant met the appellant for the first time on January 29, 1969 and that being so, it is difficult to hold that the objections raised prior to this date were calculated to put pressure on the companyplainant.
The companyplainant had the draft given to him by the appellant photographed before returning the manuscript to the appellant on January 31, 1969.
Eight currency numberes of Rs.
3 D.C. Chaudhry assuring the companyplainant that the work would be done before Holi.
The companyplainant then went to the Office of Special Police Establishment, Kotah House, and made a statement before Inspector B K. Shukla who recorded the same.
The appellant also attempted to remove the powder that stuck to his fingers from the currency numberes by licking the fingers and rubbing them on the matting on the floor.
100/ from Shri Hari Chand, Attorney of Shri N.C.L khanpal, owner of property No 6/38 A, Vijaynagar for expediting the issue of sale permission for the said property that you on 28.1.69 accepted Rs 20/ as patty payment of your demanded illegal gratification from the said Shri Hari Chand and agreed to accept the balance of Rs.
70/ on February 26, 1969 and described how the sum of Rs.
80/ would be paid after the permission was granted.
The companyplainant was a tailor by profession.
D.W.1 and D. W. 2 supported this case.
He admitted that his fingers were dipped in a solution of Sodium Carbonate but denied that the shade turned violet.
The appellant took Rs.
70/ was recovered from the appellant.
The appellant demanded money from the companyplainant in the presence of PW.
Admittedly, the appellant used to deal with applications relating to sale of properties which companyld he finalised only on permission being granted by the Land and Development Officer, Complainant Hari Chand had made several applications for such permission in companynection with a property purchased by his wife in the year 1964 It appears that the appellant who started dealing with this case from July 1968 raised objections on the ground of some defects or other.
C. Gupta, J. In January, 1969 the appellant Hari Dev Sharma was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Land Development Office, New Delhi.
working as a U.D.C. property III Section, by companyruption or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your official position as a public servant, obtained a pecuniary advantage of Rs.
As the companyplainant did number then have the money with him, he asked the appellant to companye next day.
The companyplainant then took out the currency numberes from his pocket, retained one of them, and requested the appellant to accept Rs.
70/ saying that he had been able to companylect the money by pawning his golden ring.
73, Amrit Kaur Market, Delhi which amount of Rs.
His case was that his friend Devki Nandan Wahi, D.W. 2, had given some cloth pieces for stitching to the companyplainant who was a tailor which the companyplainant spoiled.
