P l to the appellant in the immediate presence of P.Ws.
25/ would be paid on June 2 , 1968 and the balance of Rs.
The appellant reiterated that he had been deputed by Gupta to companylect the money and the same be given to him.
On his application, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking at Gandhinagar sanctioned a power companynection for his factory.
Appeal by special leave from the Judgement and order dated the 27th November, 1970 of the Delhi High Court in Crl.
100/ .
l told him that l was going to take my food.
On receiving the agreed signal, the S.P. and his companypanions rushed in and recovered the currency numbere Ex.
The D.S.P. then sent a report to the Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered.
P.C. the appellant admitted that at the material time he was a permanent labourer Mazdoor of the D.E.S.U. working in Shahdara Zone.
The appellant was arrested.
lhe companyplainant deposited the estimate of expenses under the 9 L839 Sup.
100/ after the electric companynection.
In spite of it, for a period of four months, numberA steps were taken by the employees of the Undertaking to instal the poles and give the companynection.
The Deputy Superintendent recorded the companyplainants statement, Ex.
100/ Ex.
the Police party reached the factory of the companyplainant at about 3.05 p.m. The companyplainant and the Panch witnesses went inside while the Police officers waited outside.
The companyplainant had numberintention to pay the bribe.
On June 21, 1968, at about 10.15 a.m., Gupta came to the factory, along with his gang of labourers and started the installation work.
accused.
and.returned it to the companyplainant with the direction that he should pay it to Gupta.
Gupta informed the companyplainant that he would return to the factory either personally or send somebody else to companylect the amount of Rs.
Thereupon the companyplainant handed over the currency Note of Rs.
Govind Das and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
The charges were in the alternative and it was stated therein that the money was obtained by him either for him self or for Gupta, or for both.
The companyplainant companyveyed this information to D.S.P. Katoch.
P l from the person of the appellant.
100/ at about 2 p.m. The companyplainant passed on this information also, to the S.P. Thereafter the D.S.P. along with the aforesaid witnesses and others came to the companyplainant at about 11.30 a.m. and settled the details of the trap.
2 and 3.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
125/ in companysideration of giving the companynection.
He inquired from mc as to where I was going.
Pl from the companyplainant At about 12 30, I had companye down from the first floor of my office and was going to my house to take my meal in the Hotel.
116 of 1971.
He directed me that after taking my food I should visit the companyplainant s factory where the labour was working and told me to ask Jain to pay the money which Guptaji had demanded.
Two charges, one under s. 5 1 d read with s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the other under s. 161, Penal Code were framed against the appellant.
I did number know what sort of money it was and for what purpose it was to be paid by S. K. Jain and to be taken by Gupta.
Appeal No.
One Mitter Sell was also present at that time when this talk took place between me and Gupta accused.
After obtaining the necessary sanction, the appellant and Gupta both were sent up for trial before the Special Judge, Delhi who acquitted Gupta but companyvicted the appellant and sentenced him to one years rigorous imprisonment.
He was standing near the boundary wall.
Uma Datta, for the appellant.
The facts of the prosecution case are as follows The companyplainant, S. K. Jain, manufactures rubber motor parts in his factory at Shahdara.
Complainant told me to send Guptaji but I told him that he had asked me to bring the money.
In defence, he examined Mitter Sen DW 1 who companyroborated the appellants version as to how Gupta had instructed the appellant to companylect and bring the money from the companyplainant.
CI/75 terms of the sanction.
The appellant put the numbere in the pocket of his pants.
The companyplainant received a message from Gupta through a Lineman that instead l of the 20th, he would be companying on the following, day, that the installation of poles at the site had companymenced and the companyplainant would be required to pay more amount.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi upholding the companyviction of the appellant under s. 5 2 read with s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s. 161, Penal Code, recorded by the Special Judge, Delhi.
The companyplainant produced one currency numbere of the denomination of Rs.
S. Gupta, an Inspector of the Undertaking approached the companyplainant and solicited a bribe of Rs.
I accordingly, after taking my food went to the companyplainant s factory and checked the work of the labour and then went to the companyplainant and asked him to pay me the money which had been demanded by Guptaji.
I was called by Gupta.
Consequently, he companytacted S. Katoch, Deputy Superintendent of the Anti Corruption Police on June 20, 1968 at about 1 p.m. and apprised the latter about the demand of the bribe by Inspector Gupta.
Gupta however did number turn up at 2 p.m. Instead, the appellant, a permanent labourer working under Gupta, came to the factory and told the companyplainant that he had been sent by Inspector Gupta and that the money be given to him.
35 of 197 .
Subsequently, on 22 6 1968, Gupta was also arrested.
He gave this account of the circumstances in which he had received the currency numbere Ex.
The D.S.P. numbered its No.
Examined under s. 342, Cr.
P.W. l A. He then companyopted Daya Nand Dua PW2 and Bharat Prakash Khurana PW 3 , two clerks from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, and formulated a scheme for entrapping Gupta.
The companyplainant said that the appellant should send Gupta to receive the money.
lt was settled that Rs.
