But he did number agree and he created obstruction while I was discharging my duties.
Accordingly, the Driver went to the Barrier office along with P.W. 6 Hardeet Singh and P.W. 7 Munna Lal and after the amount was received by accused Narayan Singh, W. 6 Hardeet Singh came out of the office and gave the agreed signal.
This act of the Sub Inspector traffic barrier falls under section 353 Indian Penal Code.
While this altercation was going on, the accused Shyam Lal arrived there and he also reprimanded P.W. 1 and questioned his authority.
As soon as P.W. 1 entered the office, the Driver Jeet Singh informed him that the Constable has companycealed the numberes under the over coat in the inner apartment.
Kindly offence be registered and a challan be put up in the Court according to law.
The numberes were seized and while he was preparing the Panchnama, accused Udho Prasad appellant in Crl.
While I was recording the seizure memo of these numberes, Shri Sharma, Station Officer Traffic abused me and uttered bad words.
Accused Shyam Lal insisted that unless P.W. 1 gives him then and there a companyy of the seizure memo as also a writing to the effect that search was taken, the latter would number be allowed to leave the office.
40 were found beneath the over coat.
But numbersooner had P.W. 1 companye out of the office on to the road, Udho Prasad again insisted on the writing being given whereupon Shyam Lal caught P.W. 1 by his waist and forcibly lifted him, took him to the Barrier office and threw him on a chair.
Appeals by special leave from the judgment and order dated October 7, 1968 of the Madhya Pradesh High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
On an appeal by the State, the High Court also accepted the prose cution case and agreed with the findings of the trial Court but re jected the companytention of the appellants that the search was illegal and entitled the appellants to obstruct and man handle P.W. 1.
Thereafter P.W. 1 gave a written information, Ex.
A. No.
He then asked accused Narayan Singh number to sign the seizure memo.
The accused Udho Prasad asked accused Narayan Singh to take out a Danda so that these Police officials raiding the office may be taught a lesson.
After taking the search of the Barrier currency numberes of Rs.
40 p.m. but the Driver refused to pay him anything and has declined to go there as a result of which he is likely to suffer heavy loss.
A. Seyid Muhammad and B. R. G. K. Achar, for the appel lant in Cr.
80 and 81 of 1969.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal Nos.
519 of 1966.
He was accordingly allowed and he then left the office without getting the signature of the accused Narayan Singh on the seizure Memo.
P.W. 1 faced with this situation companyld number but companyply with the demand made by Udho Prasad and Shyam Lal.
It is only after he had given in writing that he had made a search, he was allowed to return to the Dak Bungalow and that too when Misra, Station Officer, P.W. 8 who had companye there went to telephone.
These two appeals are by special leave.
Appeal No.
10 each were given by Jagat Singh, P.W. 2, to his Driver who was sent to the Barrier office along with P.W. 6 and P.W. 7 to give the same, if demanded, and after they were accepted an agreed signal was to be given.
P 4 on 2 6 65, as follows It is submitted that today at 7.25 a.m. I had arranged the trap at the traffic barrier Multai.
Oil this application, Circle Inspector Rana Ranjit Singh, P.W. 1 was asked to attend to it.
P.W. 1 then assured him that he would give the seizure memo and the writing to say that he searched at the Dak Bungalow opposite and that accused should accompany him.
P.W. 1 then disclosed his identity and after having his person searched, went inside the inner apartment and recovered the currency numberes lying beneath the over companyt.
He, therefore, offered to give currency numberes which may be signed and requested that a pro per person may be given to him to arrest the Barrier Inspector Sharma and his staff and save him from tile companyruption.
Shyam Lal also picked up the numberes from the table but they were given back on the protest of P.W. 1.
81 of 1969 .
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Jaganmohan Reddy, J. The appellants along with another accused, Narayan Singh, were companyvicted by the High Court under sections 332, 353, 342 of the Indian Penal Code and were sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment on each companynt, the sentences to run companycurrently.
5 per trip or Rs.
N. Shroff and R. P. Kapur, for the respondent in both the appeals .
80/69 Shyam Lal Sharma, Barrier Inspector at Village Multai, District Betul, has seized the licence of his Driver stating that if he has to pass from the Barrier, he should bring Rs.
On arriving at the Barrier Gate, 4 currency numberes of Rs.
Immediately, P.W. 1 Ranjit Singh proceeded to the office and when the accused Narayan Singh saw him companying, he felt suspicious, went inside the inner apartment of the office and companycealed the numberes under the over coat lying there.
81/69 arrived on the scene and started taking P.W. 1 to task for having entered his office without permission or reference to him.
Even though P.W. 1 asserted that authority was companyferred upon him to make a search, accused Shyam Lal asked him to give him in writing that he had entered the Barrier office without the permission of the Person incharge otherwise he would number be allowed to go out.
Appeal No.
80 of 1969 .
A. Gupta, for the appellant in Cr.
On 26 5 1965, Sardar Jagat Singh, owner of a lorry made an application to tile Vigilance Commissioner, Bhopal Division that the appellant in Crl.
A. No.
Accordingly, he along with Jagat Singh, his Driver and Panchas Hardeet Singh, P.W. 6 and Munna Lal, P.W. 7 pro ceeded to, Multai Barrier by truck to arrange for a trap and catch the culprits red handed.
He grappled with me.
Thereafter, he said to me, You have numberpowers of trap.
At that time many persons were present on the spot.
