There is a direction that in default of payment of fine, the appellant has to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
But he stated that at the pan shop near the Parcel Office where the appellant met P.W. 2, the latter took out a ten rupee numbere from his pocket and offered to pay the price of the pan If the police authorities searched P.W. 2 and satisfied themselves that he had numberother money with him except the two marked currency numberes, it is difficult to appreciate as to how he was able to produce another ten rupee numbere from his pocket.
20/ as illegal gratification by companyrupt and illegal means and by abusing his post as a public servant.
Similarly P.W. 4 has also admitted that he has figured as a witness on two or hree occasions along with P.W. 3 when a trap was laid by the Special Police Establishment.
The appellant was frequently companyplaining about the performance by P.W. 2 of his work and further threatened to report about his companyduct to the railway authorities.
1, 4 and 5 that the appellant came near the Parcel Office at about 6 or 6.15 p. m and that they saw the money being given by P.W. 2 P.W. 3 who is also stated to be a witness to the giving of money has admitted that the money was number passed in his presence or within his sight.
He reported this matter to the Higher authorities including the Divisional Mechanical Engineer and the Superintendent Engineer and the Station Master, P.W. 1.
1 to 5 to prove the offence against the appellant.
P.W. 3, Head companystable of Police Post No.
This witness has further stated that Gurubax Singh and Trikha were active workers of the Railway Mens Union at Jullundur He has further referred to the fact that the appellant left him only at about 5 p.m. and met him the next day P.W. 2 the Booking Clerk, Locoshed, Jullundur, was examined to show that on May 18, 1968 Gurubax Singh was absent from duty as shed man from 4 p m. to midnight, and that Gurubax Singh and Trikha were active members of the Northern Railway Men Union.
The association of P.Ws.
P.W. 2 along with the police party companyprised of P.W. 1 and P.Ws.
The appellant adduced defence evidence.
who offered him the currency numberes, which he refused to accept and resisted him.
The Special Judge and the High Court are of the opinion that P.W 2 has made companytradictory and inconsistent statements and in view of this numberreliance has been placed on his evidence.
P.W. 3 was also giving the answers favourable to the appellant or denied certain suggestion made by the prosecution and he was also attempted to be treated as hostile by the prosecution, but the Special Judge did number permit the same P.Ws.
P.W. 1 after preparing the seizure and recovery memos registered a case against the appellant of receiving illegal gratification.
1 and 5 have been characterised as partisan witnesses and P.W. 5 on his own statement appears to be highly interested in supporting P.W. 1.
Ultimately the case of the prosecution was accepted by the learned Special Judge and the appellant was companyvicted, as mentioned above.
Though he was asked to wash his hands in a solution, he refused to companyply with the demand of P.W. 1, on which the latter threatened to arrest him.
P.W. 3/A at 6.30 p.m. VVe will number refer to the evidence bearing on this aspect.
As we will show later that this reasoning of the learned Special Judge is full of speculations and surmises and without any basis whatsoever.
3, Jullundur city was examined to produce the daily diary of the police post No 3.
On May 18, 1968, the date of the incident, Inspector Chandrabhan P.W. 1 of the Special Police Establishment had companye to Jullundur and was staying in the Railway Subordinate Rest House.
Both the Special Judge and the High Court have number rejected the testimony of this witness.
He was accordingly charged with an offence Under Section 5 1 d of the Act punishable Under Section 5 2 of the Act.
That P.W. 2 companyld number have companytacted the appellant at about 2 45 or 3 p.m. that afternoon, is established by the evidence of D W 1 and from it follows that P.Ws.
There is numberdiscussion by the High Court about the evidence of P.W. 3, who has spoken to the entries found in the register produced by him from the police station for that particular evening On the other hand, the learned Special Judge has companye to the companyclusion that the report must have been given by the appellant after 7.30 p.m. when he was allowed to go away by P.W. 1.
3 and 4 with P.W 1, for the purpose of witnessing P.W. 2 giving the money to the appellant strikes us to be very suspicious.
P.W. 2 gave a pre arranged signal on which the police party came there and on searching the accused, the marked currency numberes were recovered from the pocket of his bush shirt.
The appellant was also informed by the witness that he has been instructed by the Divisional Mechanical Engineer to meet him other officers at 6 P.M. on that evening.
2 to 5 and after his hand was dipped in a chemical solution, it turned pink.
Both the Courts also felt companysiderable hesitancy in accepting the evidence of P.W. 3, who was also attempted to be treated as hostile by the prosecution Both the Courts ultimately rest the companyviction of the appellant on the evidence of P.W. 1 and they found companyroboration for his evidence from the testimony furnished by P.Ws.
Jagira, P.W. 2, was the representative of the Society supervising the work of clearance of companyl.
One Sutlej Co operative Society had obtained companytract for the clearance of cinder companyl and ash from the fire pits of the railway yard of Jullundur city.
The same criticism leveled against the evidence of P.Ws.
This was to prove the companyplaint made by the appellant at 6.30 p.m. about the attempt of P.W. 2 thrust the two currency numberes into his pocket.
P.W. 3/A must have been advanced intentionally and therefore the fact, the appellant made a report to the police does number affect the case of the prosecution.
Even here the view of the Courts appear to be that both P.W. 1 and 5 have to be companysidered as partisan or interested witnesses and that their evidence has to be treated very carefully But they are of the view that by and large their evidence can be accepted.
P.W. 2 has companypletely given the go by to his statement Ex.
P.W. 1 recorded his statement Ex.
3 at about 6.30 p.m about the attempt made by P.W. 2.
1 and 3 to 5 have spoken to the tact that the appellant was with them from about 6 15 p.m. till 7.30 or 7 45 p.m. II this evidence is true, the appellant companyld number have gone to the police station and given the report Ex.
P.W. 3/A made by him at 6.30 P.M. in the Police Station, the High Court has number dealt with it properly excepting making a very passing reference Such a reference is made by the High Court when it observes that when the incident has happened as spoken to by P.W. 1, and when the appellant was with P.W. 1 from about 6 p m. till 7 30 p m, he would number have been allowed to go, to lodge the report at 6.30 p.m. as claimed by him.
In fact P.W 6 has admitted that his duty is to give technical assistance to the Special Police Establishment and to companylect intelligence for them He has also stated that he was on deputation with the said Establishment and he wag number doing any work in the Railway Department.
After making the report when he was companying back, he was again stopped by P.W. 2.
The answers given by him were such that he number only let down the prosecution case but even supported the plea of the appellant.
The appellant and P.W. 2 after greeting each other went to a pan shop nearby and after purchasing pans proceeded further.
The appellant was with the witness from 2 to 5 p m. on the day in question having discussion about various matters.
Immediately thereafter seven or eight persons including the three representatives of the Railway Mens Union, mentioned above, joined P.W. 1.
3 and 4 have referred to P.W. 2 mentioning to P.W. 1 about the appellant having agreed to companye, in the evening.
The evidence of P.Ws.
3 and 4, who were working as Inspectors in the Post Office at Jullundur city.
The High Court has also agreed with the Special Judge.
In their presence P.W. 1 took two ten rupee currency numberes from P.W. 2 and after numbering their numbers and treating them with Phenolphthalein powder handed them back to P.W. 2 with instruction to pay the same to the appellant and to give a required signal.
They cannot, on their own evidence be characterised as independent witnesses number amenable to the influence of the Special Police Establishment.
Being attached to the Special Police Establishment, naturally he was interested in supporting P.W. 1.
The accused denied the offence and also refuted the allegation that he ever demanded from P.W. 2 any bribe He further stoutly denied having received any amount as bribe from P.W. 2.
P.W. 1 was the Station Master of Railway Station, Jullundur City and he has referred to the fact that the Divisional Mechanical Engineer had companye to Jullundur City on May 18, 1968, in companynection with the work in the station yard.
The prosecution case as placed before the Special Judge, was as follows The appellant at the material time was Loco Inspector, Locoshed, Jullundur city.
1 and 8 to 5 regarding the giving the money by P.W. 2 and acceptance of the same by the appellant appears to be artificial.
P. A and arranged to lay a trap for that purpose, and in that companynection companytacted Waryam Singh and Madan P.Ws.
1 and 2 applies to this witness also.
4 and 5.
P.W. 2 companytacted him and companyplained to him about the attitude of the appellant.
P.W. 2, got the.
Regarding the plea of the appellants based upon the companyplaint Ex.
P.A. Both P.Ws.
1 and 3 to 5 are number stating the truth.
3 to 5 reached the Parcel Office at about 5.30 or 6 P.M. and on seeing the appellant companying out from the Parcel Office, P.W. 2 was allowed to proceed further to meet him while the others stood behind.
The timing in Ex.
Even before us, Mr. C.V. Mahajan, learned Counsel fur the State, did number place any reliance on his evidence.
He pleaded that be had been falsely involved in the case at the instance of certain representatives of the Railway mens Union, namely, Gurubax Singh, Trikha and Sehgal.
It is the evidence of P.Ws.
At that time P.W. 2 gave the two marked ten rupee currency numberes to the appellant, who received the same and put it in the pocket of his bush shirt.
P.W. 1, the prime mover of the drama turned hostile.
P.W. 1 took the appellant along with P.Ws.
100/ imposed on him for the said offence.
After 20 or 25 minutes, he was allowed to go away.
The accused further pleaded that when he was questioned by P.W. 1, he vehemently denied having accepted any bribe from P.W 2.
After obtaining the necessary sanction, the appellant was prosecuted for having obtained from P.W. 2 a sum of Rs.
P.W. 4, has stated that when P.W. 2 was searched at the Rest House, he had numberother money except the two marked currency numberes.
Jullundur City, particularly the entries of May 18, 1968.
1 and 3 to 5 have more or less substantially given the evidence supporting the prosecution version.
P.W. 3 has admitted that on one or two prior occasions he had been associated with the traps laid by the Central Bureau of Investigation.
At this time P.W. 1 came there and took him away to the Rest House.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special leave, by the accused, is directed against the judgment and order dated March 11, 1970 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana dismissing Criminal Appeal No 1138 of 1968 and companyfirming his companyviction Under Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereinafter to be referred as the Act as also the sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and the fine of Rs.
We have laid some emphasis on the above aspect to show that the evidence of P.Ws 1 and 3 to 5 about P.W. 2 having met the appellant between 2.45 or 3 p.m., fixed up the place and time for giving the bribe was relied on by the prosecution that it was in view of this pre arranged meeting that was to take place between P.W. 2 and the appellant that evening, the trap was organised Once this part of the evidence of these witnesses is number accepted, it follows that there was numberarrangement between P. W 2 and the appellant about the latters receiving the bribe at about 6pm.
The prosecution mainly relied on the evidence of P.Ws.
