The appellant preferred an appeal which was heard by Mr. Justice Falshaw of the Punjab High Court.
90 from Ram Narain at the aforesaid Canteen for the restoration of his cancelled licence for the double barrelled gun which had been originally grant to him, by the District Magistrate Delhi and thereby companymitted an offence u s 161 I.P.C. or in the alternative u s 5 1 d punishable u s 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which is within my companynizance.
The police decided to lay a trap for catching the appellant red handed.
105 per month bad been falsely made with a view to get over the difficulty that applications for licences for firearms by Government servants drawing less than Rs.
He framed the following charge against him.
And I hereby direct that you be tried by this Court for the aforesaid offences mentioned in the charge.
On the prearranged signal being given by Sarwan Singh, Inspector Surendra Pal Singh Prosecution Witness 16, at once entered the canteen.
Ram Narain for reasons of his own, appeared to have approached his superior officers and thus the matter reached the Chief Fire Officer, who appraised the police of the proposed illegal transaction between Ram Narain and the appellant.
It appears that eventually the authorities companycerned were appraised of the fact that the salary of Ram Narain was only Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the February 4, 1957, of the Punjab High Court Circuit Bench at Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Judge came to the companyclusion that the evidence produced by the prosecution brought the charge home to the accused, and that the accused, taking advantage of his own position as an employee in the Chief Commissioners office, and of Ram Narains ignorance and anxiety to get the licence had induced him to part with the money on the pro mise that he will get his licence restored.
These applications did number produce any results.
The appellant, failing to obtain a certificate from the High Court that his was a fit case for farther appeal to ,his Court, applied for, and obtained from this Court, special leave to appeal from the judgment of the single, Judge of the High Court.
Civil Lines Police Station at 2 30 P.m.
Thus, the third application for the licence was made in which Rain Narains salary was declared to be Rs.
The appellant demanded another Rs.
The appellant held out hopes of success in obtaining the licence if he was paid Rs.
C. Arathur, P. C. Mathur and A. N. Goyal, for the Appellants.
K. Khanna and T. M. Sen, for the Respondents.
Dass, Special Judge Delhi.
6 of 1959.
He also found that at the time of making this demand the appellant had number told Ram Narain that he wanted the money for someone who was in a position to issue the licence and that therefor, the case did number fall within s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
After investigation by a companypetent police officer tinder permission from the Magistrate, the appellant was placed on his trial before Shri Jawala.
85 per month and that the declaration in the form that his salary was Rs.
It is alleged that in this companynection he bad sought the assistance of the appellant who had numberhing to do with the issuing of licences for firearms, which is done by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi.
Ultimately, Ram Narain agreed to pay the appellant Rs.
90 after the licence had actually been restored to him.
Ram Narain made his representation to the authorities and showed cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, alleging that his monthly salary had been falsely declared in the relevant form for application for the firearm on the advice of the appellant.
his licence was cancelled and he was called upon to show cause why he should number be prosecuted for having made a false statement.
that very day, August 5, 1954.
Ram Narain handed over the ninety rupees, which he had been given by the police, to the appellant.
At that time the appellant, suspecting that he was being trapped, attempted to hand over the money received by him from Ram Narain to Kishorilal, the proprietor of the canteen The head companystable Gurbacban Singh, however, seized the accused and prevented him from handing over the currency numberes to Kishorilal.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Before the learned single Judge of the High Court in Delhi, before whom the case came, up on appeal, it was number disputed that the appellant had used his good offices in expediting and furthering the progress of the application in the appropriate department.
Ram Narain, aforesaid, had for a long time been anxious to obtain a licence for a double barrelled shotgun.
S.C.R. 739.
He had companye to know 1 1959 Supp.
There, Sarwan Singh a taxi driver, and Head Constable Gurbachan Singh in plain clothes, who were examined as prosecution witnesses, were present by arrangement.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SINHA, C. J. This appeal was first heard by a Division Bench of three judges, companyposed of the Chief Justice, Imam and Shah, JJ.,
I, Jawala Dass, Special Judge, Delhi, hereby charge you Dhaneshwar Narain son of Babu Lakshmi Narain resident of 21, Todar Mal Lane, New Delhi as follows That you on or about 5th August 1954 in the canteen on 6, Alipore Road, being a public servant employed in the office of the Chief Commissioner, Delhi by companyrupt and illegal moans and by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant obtained for yourself a sum of Rs.
90 in advance and promised to pay the remaining Rs.
100 per month would number ordinarily be companysidered.
140 and held out a promise to pay the amount after his sisters marriage.
The prosecution story further is that when Ram Narain got into the trouble, as aforesaid, about the false statement in his application form, he again approached the appellant.
The learned Judge, by his judgment and order dated February 4,1957 substantially affirmed the findings of the learned Special Judge and maintained the order of companyviction and sentence.
180 as a reward for his getting the licence restored.
173 C of 1956.
When the authorities came to know the true facts about Ram Narains status in Government service.
This third attempt proved successful and Ram Narain was granted the necessary licence.
August 24. ,
105 per month.
That is the story which was recited in the First Information Report drawn up in the.
The appellant was an upper Division Clerk in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi.
Ram Narain, who is the chief prosecution witness in this case and who is a fireman serving in Delhi Fire Brigade.
on the 19th of February last year.
Accordingly, Ram Narain saw the appellant in the Chief Commissioners office and accompanied him to the canteen run by Kishorilal, who has been examined as Defence Witness 1 This canteen is situated on the Alipore Road near the Chief Commissioners office.
Ram Narain paid only Rs.
In .1954, he made another attempt in the same direction and approached the appellant to help him.
The prosecution story, which, as indicated above, rests mainly on the statement of Ram Narain, is that he had submitted two applications during the year 1953 for the, purpose of obtaining the licence aforesaid, with the assistance of the appellant.
