250 was provided by Dy.
After that the companyplainant produced a bundle of currency numberes and asked the appellant to accept them.
S.P. Pandya.
The companyplainant then went to one Ramanbhai Shankarbhai, the secretary of the Taluka Congress Committee Anand and companyplained to him about the demand of bribe from him.
S.P. Pandya gave him Rs.
The appellant then gave a slap which struck the companyplainant on his hands and the numberes fell down.
On June 23, 1954 at about 9 30 a.m., the companyplainant went to the house of the appellant and appellant assured the companyplainant that he need number worry about his case but that he should pay to him Rs.
S.P. Pandya showed him his identity card he took the money from his shirt pocket and threw it on the ground.
The companyplainant expressed his inability to pay that sum but the appellant insisted that he would number take anything less and asked the companyplainant to see him the following morning between 8 and 9 Oclock.
The appellant was then prosecuted under Section 161, I. P. C. The defence was that the case had been started against the appellant at the instigation of one Tribhuwandas and a lawyer Bhailalbhai with whom it was alleged there was an enmity.
S.P. Pandya.
In this companynection reference was made to Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, .
Both the companyplainant and the witness went to the house of the appellant and they were followed by two Sub Inspectors Kantilal and Rathod and Dy.
Thereafter three witnesses were examined on June 17, 1954 and the cases were adjourned to June 24, 1954.
Ramanbhai Shankarbhai introduced the companyplainant to Sub Inspector Kantilal Patel of the Anti Corruption Branch at Surat and the companyplainant told him about the demand of the bribe.
The police filed charge sheets in both cases.
On July 21, 1953 one Fatesing Somabhai and others brought a companyplaint against Ramanbhai Harmanbhai of village Ajarpura, the companyplainant.
At first the appellant was reluctant but when Dy.
Complainant Ramanbhai Harmanbhai was prepared to pay a sum of Rs.
The appellants companynsel companytended that witnesses in the present case were number only partisan but their testimony must be taken to be in the nature of evidence of accomplices as the sum of Rs.
The cases dragged on and numberhing happened till June 17, 1954 when there was a talk of a settlement and companypounding the companyplaints.
The High Court discussed their evidence at great length particularly of Dy.
On the following day the companyplainant brought a companynter complaint against Fatesing Somabhai and others.
250 companysisting of two currency numberes of Rs.
One of the panch witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai was asked to accompany the companyplainant to the house of the appellant.
On the same day the companyplainant was returning to his village and therefore went to the Railway Station Umreth.
100 but Fatesing Somabhai and others demanded Rs.
Superintendent of Police Pandya came to Anand along with Sub Inspector Kantilal Patel and the next morning the Dy.
There money was paid by the companyplainant to the appellant who after accepting these numberes from the companyplainant put them in the pocket of his shirt.
The currency numberes were picked up by Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and numbers were found to be the same as on the numberes which had been given by Dy.
The companyplainant met the appellant at the Railway Station and asked the appellant if it was still possible to have the companypromise and the appellant told him to companye to his house a day before the next hearing and as the companyplainant did number know his address the appellant gave him his address.
Sub Inspector Kantilal Patel went to Dy.
250 and he would see that he, the companyplainant, was acquitted.
Mohanbhai Shankarbhai has been characterised by the trial Court as a respectable man who has worked as a teacher, was then in business and, was at the time of the occurrence serving in the Agricultural Produce Market Committee.
S.P. Pandya.
250/ on June 24, 1954.
The appellant then obtained special leave in this Court on November 21, 1955 and was released on bail.
S.P. Pandya.
Superintendent of Police Pandya of the Anti Corruption Branch and told him of the companyplaint of the companyplainant whereupon the Dy.
Honours and he was in service as Assistant Dairy Superintendent in Kaira District Co operative Milk Union Ltd. He also had numberconnection with the companyplainant or with any other person with regard to whom it companyld be stated that he was inimical towards the appellant.
The appellant was a Police Prosecutor at Anand in the district of Kaira.
On a pre arranged signal being given the police officers and the other panch witness Rambhai Dahyabhai rushed into the house of the appellant.
S.P. Pandya asked the appellant to produce the money which he had received from the companyplainant.
These are the two rival versions and the case of the prosecution depends upon the evidence of the companyplainant and of the witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai.
The other witness Rambhai Dahyabhai is described as B. Ag.
200 and therefore the talks were unsuccessful.
Sub Inspector Kantilal caught hold of the hands of the appellant and the Dy.
Meanwhile the other persons arrived and surrounded the appellant and made him sit on a chair and then he became unconscious.
He had numberconnection whatever with the companyplainant and he had numberconnection with the appellant either.
Rambhai Dahyabhai, Sub Inspector Kantilal and Dy.
It cannot be said that these two witnesses were number independent witnesses even though they companysented to become Search or Panch witnesses.
The appellant was also at the Railway Station and was going to Anand.
The appellant was companyducting the prosecution on behalf of the State.
The appellant denied the meeting at the Railway Station as well as the going of the appellant to his house on the 23rd.
S. P. Pandya called the companyplainant and took down his companyplaint.
Two Panch witnesses Mohanbhai Shankarbhai and Rambhai Dahyabhai were also called and in their presence the companyplainant was searched and the Dy.
100 each and five currency numberes of 10 rupee each.
S.P. Pandya.
S.P. Pandya.
Both the Courts have accepted the testimony of these witnesses.
The case was that on the morning of June 24, 1954 he, the appellant, was sitting with his father and one Dr. Mangaldas and the companyplainant accompanied by another person came to his house and enquired whether his case would be taken up on that day and when the appellant told him that the case would be taken up the companyplainant asked him to companye out and when he went out the companyplainant started talking with him and went on talking for about 7 or 8 minutes.
