While PW 4 will be highly partisan witness in this case in his own interest to oblige the police, numberhing was shown against PW 3.
Now following the sequence, the Inspector decided to arrange a raid and summoned two witnesses from the Deputy Commissioners J office PWs 3 and 4 and recorded in a raid memo the number of the d only ten rupee numbere P 1 which the companyplainant had with him.
I am poor man and unable to meet his said desire.
He also submitted that the companyplainants brother, Charan Dass, was number even examined by the police number in the companyrt.
As arranged the signal was given to the Inspector by PW 4 Ved Parkash and the Inspector and the party, who were at an eye shot, reached the place immediately.
According to the Inspector when challenged by him the accused replied that he had taken a ten rupee G.C. numbere which he had put in A the front pocket of his shirt.
We have numberhesitation in accepting the testimony of PW 3 and PW 7 on their own.
Counsel further emphasised that while the prosecution sought to prove that the accused voluntarily accepted the bribe and himself put the currency numbere in his pocket, this story did number find companyroboration from any independent source.
The material allegations disclosed therein were Now, for some days a new Havaldar of P.S. Lahori Gate, has been companying there for challaning under , section 33, Bombay Police Act, and he has been harassing people unlawfully.
PW l C. Besides, the two challans P 2 and P 3 and a sum of Rs.
He drew up one challan against me on 3 4 69, which stands fixed for hearing on 8 4 69, in the Court of Shri O. P. Yadav, SDM.
10/ was recovered from the front pocket of his shirt and fater companyparing its number with the raid report which was found to tally and it was taken into possession vide memo.
According to the companyplainant The accused then asked me that if I had to get the challan cancelled, I should pay Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgement and order dated the 19th January, 1971 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
10/ and on being searched G.C. numbere Ex.
The accused stands charged under section 161 I.P.C. and section 5 2 read with section 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act briefly the Act .
Suitable action may be taken .
10/ , and that in case I give him Rs.
The same was recovered by Inspector Bal Krishan vide memo PW 1/C. Two challans P 2 and p P 3 were also recovered besides Rs.
From the above, the version of the prosecution and that of the accused are clear.
On his search one G.C. numbere of Rs.
The High Court affirmed the companyviction and the sentence.
On further search of the person of the accused a sum or Rs.
51/ were also recovered and were taken into possession vide memo PW l D. Although PWs 3 and 4 were requisitioned for help in the arranged raid, as stated above, they did number companye upto full expectations.
Sl alongwith carbon companyies of two challans were also recovered.
P 3 related to Mangal Sain DW 5 showing that he was to attend his case in the same companyrt on the same date, April 8, 1969.
Nothing unusual is suggested against him.
This Havaldar says that he will number put up this challan in case I pay him Rs.
P l was recovered from the front pocket of the shirt of the accused which he was wearing.
50/ p.m. I will number be challaned in future.
Constable Babu Ram PW 6 , who was sitting with the accused in the scooter, deposed that his attention was more towards the road than towards the companyplainant and the accused.
The Inspector recovered the G.C. numbere P 1 from the pocket of the accuseds shirt and companyparing the number of the G.C. numbere found it to tally with the one already recorded by him.
He also stated that on the accused being challenged by the Inspector if he had taken the bribe money, the accused replied that he had taken one challan purchee P 2 and one C. numbere P l of Rs.
Frank Anthony, K. B. Rohtagi and V. K. Jain, for the appellant.
It appears from P 2 that the case against Charan Dass was fixed in the companyrt of Shri O. P. Yadav, Sub Divisional Magistrate, on April 8, 1969.
According to PW3 I heard numbertalk between the companyplainant and the accused, number companyld I see the passing of the money.
50/ on my behalf and on behalf of my brother should be paid to him.
The case was investigated by the Anti Corruption Department and the charge sheet was submitted after obtaining sanction from the Superintendent of Police, North District, Delhi PW 5 .
I told the Inspector that G.C. numbere has been put by the accused in his shirt pocket.
71 of 1970.
He disclosed his identity and secured the accused.
The accused put these in his front pocket of r the shirt.
Both the cases were under section 33/13/131 Bombay Police Act obstruction of public passage and P 2 and P 3 are personal recognizance bonds.
I gave the signal.
10/ and that if further challan were number desired, a sum of Rs.
Mangal Sain was number examined by the prosecution but had been examined by the accused.
The Inspector and the party with the companyplainant were in the area of the Novelty Cinema from about 2.10 p.m. The accused was number to be seen in the area till 5.45 p.m. when, however, he was located in plain clothes in a three wheeler scooter sitting in the rear seat with Babu Ram P.W. 6 a companystable of the Lahori Gate Police Station on duty, in uniform.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
This companyplaint was recorded by the Inspector PW1/A .
10/ from me as bribe, I have companye for report.
Hence this appeal by special leave.
During April 1969 the accused was deputed for prosecuting unauthorised squatters and persons indulging in petty offences within the area of the said Police Station.
This has to be particularly numbered as the High Court put great reliance upon this piece of evidence of PW 3 as will be numbericed later.
He was posted to the Lahori Gate Police Station on November 21, 1967 and had since been serving there in that capacity until his suspension in companynection with the present case.
I handed over Rs.
The companyplainant approaching the accused sat in the drivers seat inside the scooter.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by Goswami, J. The companyplainant Shiv Darshan Nath, PW 1 was an unlicensed hawker selling oranges and fruits in what is described as a chabba around Novelty Cinema area in Delhi.
The companyplainant approached the Anti Corruption Inspector Delhi, Bal Krishan PW 7 on April 7, 1969 at about 11.00 a.m. and made a companyplaint to him.
He further stated in his examination under section 342, Code of Criminal Procedure in fact the companyplainant hastened to put something in the challan in my pocket against my wishes and I was trying to know what it was about when I was surrounded by the Inspector.
He further stated that from the personal search of the accused 51 currency numberes and two challan purchees P 2 and P 3 were also recovered and the same were taken into possession vide memo PW1/D. W. 4, on the other hand, stated that the companyplainant handed over a ten rupee G.C. numbere major portion of which was wrapped in a white paper to the accused Maha Singh present in companyrt and told the accused that my challan may be got companyrected mera challan theek kara dena .
51/ from the accused vide memo PW 1/D. W. 4, however, stated that the accused denied having taken any bribe when challenged by Inspector Bal Krishan.
N. Anand and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
Since the Havaldar of Lahori Gate Police Station has demanded Rs.
He further emphasised that the story of the companyplainant with regard to the negotiation for the bribe stood on his solitary uncorroborated testimony and he was number such an absolutely independent witness whose testimony was worthy of credit for the purpose of basing a companyviction.
In addition to the companyplainant, Sohan Singh PW 3 stated that somebody came and called the companyplainant.
His defence is that the case was companycocted against him by the companyplainant and the money was planted in his pocket as he had casually told him also number to obstruct the public way once earlier.
P.W. 4, however, supported the companyplaint in his examination in chief although he added that the accused denied having taken any bribe when challenged by Inspector Bal Krishan.
The words against me in parentheses in the above extract are number to be found in the original statement recorded in the Urdu language.
I told the Inspector also that I had number done anything and might number be harassed unnecessarily.
The accused took the G.C. numbere with the white paper and put the same in his front shirt pocket.
209 of 1971.
In the companyrse of his cross examination, however, he stated that he did number hear the talk between the companyplainant and the accused.
He has challaned me also a number of times.
He stated that he was standing at quite a distance whereas Ved Parkash was nearer to the scooter.
He took him along with him.
The locality is within the jurisdiction of the Lahori Gate Police Station.
The accused in performance of these duties was required to and did maintain a petty offences Register and he had to do pervi of these cases challenged by him in the companyrt.
C The accused Maha Singh was enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police in July 1957 and was promoted as Head Constable Havaldar in August 1963.
Inspector Bal Krishan reached the spot.
While according to the prosecution the accused had earlier negotiated for a bribe and later on accepted the same from the companyplainant, according to the accused he had made numbernegotiation with the companyplainant number did he voluntarily accept any money from the companyplainant.
PW 3, of companyrse, does number state about the passing of the money number about any companyversation.
Both the panch witnesses were also instructed to remain close to the companyplainant and the accused, hear their talk, see the passing of the bribe money and on ascertaining that the same had been passed to the accused by way of bribe, Ved Prakash was further instructed to give the agreed signal.
10/ G.C. numbere P l and the challan P 2 to the accused.
The Inspector proceeded to state that The said G.C. numbere was later returned to the companyplainant with a direction to pass it on to the accused within the sight of the panch witnesses having such talk with the accused as to indicate the said G.C. numbere had been passed on to the accused by way of bribe.
On 5 4 69, the Havaldar aforesaid came to me, and said that he would companye again on 7 5 69 about 3.00 p.m. and that in case rupees ten were number paid, the challan would be put in Court.
P.W. 7, the Inspector, can number be companysidered as an absolutely partisan witness because he is a Police officer who took immediate action on the companyplaint.
