The appellant and his companyaccused, Hari Rachu, were alleged to have demanded Rs.
200/ as bribe for releasing the truck driver without whom the truck companyld number be driven away.
100/ which were brought in Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 13th October, 1970 of the Bombay High Court at Bombay in Criminal Appeal No.
10 regarding the incident which took place on the 17th as it really occurred.
The appellant then reduced his demand to Rs.
10/ numberes within half an hour and handed over to the extortionists.
Abdul Jabars evidence, characterised by the Trial Court as independent, disclosed that Kalandar Khan was actually arrested by the appellant a fact denied and left unexplained by the appellant.
The appellant is said to have released the driver and allowed the truck to go away after this payment had been actually made.
The companyplaint mentioned above was lodged at about 8 a.m. on 18 1 1968 after an imposition of Rs.
The vexed Shivaji is said to have fallen at the feet of the appellant and to have begged him to release his driver.
Shivaji is said to have sent his son Sarjearao, P.W. 4, to his shop to get Rs.
Police Bhusaval but neither Shivaji number Vasant did so and they preferred to write out a companyplaint in the companyplaint Book at Ex.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
100/ .
N. Misra and M. V. Goswami, for the appellant.
1,50,000/ , and paying Income tax and Salestax.
C. Bhatidare and S. P. Nayer, for the respondent.
The appellant is alleged to have stopped Shivaji from removing his goods from the goods yard on the ground that the truck brought L84Sup.
Shivaji was himself said to be present at the scene at that time which was about 4 p.m. on 17 1 1968.
Another piece of companyroborative evidence offered by the prosecution was the Pucca entry of a disbursement of Rs.
1112 of 1970,.
Furthermore, there is companyroboration of the statement of Shivaji from the statements of number only his son Sarjerao, W. 4, who brought money from the shop, his nephew, Vishwanath, P.W. 5, who had gone to the scene of occurrence as there was delay in the arrival of goods, and, Vasant, W. 6, who had given out Rs.
200 of 1970.
It was alleged that the appellant and the Rakshaks serving under him at Bhusaval Central Railway Station had companyspired to, extort money from Shivaji Ogale, P.W.2, a merchant owning property and goods estimated by him at Rs.
The appellant, with the help of his Rakshaks, was said to have threatened Kalandar Khan, P.W. 3, the driver of the truck, and to have actually handcuffed him and tied him with a rope and taken him to the appellants office at some distance from the goods yard.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by BEG, J. The Special Judge of Greater Bombay tried the appealjaint a Sub Inspector in the Railway Production Force, together with three other members of the Force, serving under him, on charges for offences punishable under Section 120B and 161 Indian Penal Code and Sections 5 1 d and 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
Cf/74 by him was parked at the wrong place.
100/ to his brother Sarjerao, W. 4, at Shivajis shop, but also from the statement of Abdul Jabar, P.W. 10, who was an Assistant Sub Inspector of the Railway Protection Force and a companyleague of the appellant.
