One Som Nath used to park his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chholey.
P. W. I was also informed that the police party will be hiding nearby and that he should give a particular signal after paying the amount to the appellant.
P. Ws.
At about 2.
No doubt the appellant has stated when he was examined under Section 342 Cr.
10/to the appellant, the latter was asked to produce the same.
45 P. M. the appellant came to the rehri of P. W. I and told him give, my thing to me.
The, learned Special Judge accepted the evidence of P. Ws.
1, 2, 3 and 6, and rejected the evidence of D. Ws.
Both the Special Judge as well as the High Court have accepted as true the evidence of P. Ws.
The view of the learned Special Judge was that D. W. I was giving false, evidence on account of business friendship and that D. W. 2 had said numberhing about the incident in question.
The appellant denied that he had either demanded or received any bribe from P. W. I He pleaded that the alleged recovery of the currency numbere from him is false and that the witnesses had been tutored to give false evidence at the instance of Ved Prakash, Sub Inspector of Police, who was his enemy.
20 per month for number harassing him for carrying on his business without the necessary licence.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated September 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
Som Nath expressed his inability to pay such a heavy amount and ultimately the appellant agreed to receive Rs.
10 per month.
CIVIL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal 23 of 1968.
This companyplaint was reduced to writing by Harnaik Singh, who has given evidence as P. W. 6.
Som Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10 years without payment of the necessary tax to the Municipal Corporation and without taking any licence.
He promised to make the first payment on August 26, 1965 between 2 and 3 P. M. At about 11 A. M. on August 26, 1965, Som Nath approached Sri Hamaik Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the Anti, Corruption Department and reported about the demand made by the appellant and to his having ultimately agreed to pay a sum of Rs.
10 between 2 and 3 P. M. on that day.,
26 D of 1966.
The number of the currency numbere was checked with the number already recorded and it tallied.
The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P. W. I Som Nath and the two persons who had witnessed the search and seisure P. Ws.
Certain other witnesses were also examined.
2 and 3 also witnessed the search and seizure made by P. W. 6.
The High Court also companyfirmed the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Vaidialingam, J. This appeal, by special, leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant for offenses under Sections 5 2 read with Section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 hereinafter to be referred as the Act and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
This was the only modification effected by the High Court with regard to the sentence.
10 and after numbering the number handed it over to P. W. I with the instruction to, give the same to the appellant on demand.
In particular on August 25, 1965 the appellant demanded from Som Nath as bribe a sum of Rs.
The appellant used to harass and threaten Som Nath that unless he paid bribe to him, he will be prosecuted.
W. 6, summoned two employees from the office of the Deputy Collector, Tees Hazari, Sri Navneet Lal P. W.2 and Hari Kisban P. W. 3 and in their presence took from P. W. I the currency numbere of Rs.
N. Dikshit and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
P. C. that the prosecution witnesses Nos.
The case for the prosecution was as follows The appellant was employed in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi.
1, 2 and 3 are under the influence and threat of the police and that they have been prompted by Ved Prakash due to enmity to give false evidence against him.
In addition to this the Special Judge had imposed a fine of Rs.
The appellant also examined two witnesses.
C. Agarwal, for the appellant.
Accordingly the appellant was prosecuted for the offenses mentioned above.
2 and 3 proceeded near the rehri of P. I. While P. W. I went to the rehri, the police party and Ws.
1, and 2.
While companyfirming the companyviction and the sentence of one years rigorous imprisonment, the High Court, however, reduced the fine to Rs.
P. I from his pocket.
P. W. 6 made a search of the appellant and recovered the currency numbere Ex.
The Evidence of D. W. I has been categorically rejected as false.
D. W. 2 does number say anything about the incident and as such his evidence is of numberassistance to the appellant.
1, 2, and 3 supported as it was by the evidence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 6.
2 and 3 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 6.
P. W. I placed the currency numbere on the palm of the appellant saying that he was Making the payment with companysiderable difficulty.
On signal given by P. W. 1, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with others immediately went to the rehri of P. W. I and on being told by P. W. 1 that he had paid Rs.
D. W. 1 who was also having a rehri in the same chowk, had stated that the appellant had number received any bribe from P. W. I and that he also informed P. W. 6 about the same.
According to the appellant, he had declined to accede to the request of Ved Prakash to give false evidence against two Sub Inspectors of Police, Phool Singh and Jeeva Singh, whom he wanted to be implicated in a case.
2 and 3 remained behind in hiding.
D. W. 2 was the Secretary of the Rehri Labour Union and he has deposed to the fact that numbere of the members of the Union had ever companyplained against the appellant and that the latter had numberhing to do with the prosecution of people under Section 34 of the Police Act.
The police party headed by P. W. 6 together with the company plainant and P. Ws.
