A signal was then made by Shukla and the raiding party immediately arrived on the scene.
Both the prosecution and the defence led evidence to support their respective versions.
This companytract had been given to Shukla in June 1952.
Shukla then met the appellant and informed him that he had brought the money he was told that the appellant would go out to the Yard and accept the money.
Meanwhile Shukla approached the Deputy Superintendent, of Police, Corruption Branch, and gave him information about the illegal demand made by the appellant.
It is on these facts that charges under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and s. 5 2 of the Act were framed against the appellant.
Shukla had numbermoney at the time and so he asked for time to make the necessary arrangement.
Shuklas statement was then recorded before a magistrate and it was decided to lay a trap.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated July 11, 1957, of the Allahabad High Court Lucknow Bench , Lucknow, in Criminal Appeal No.
At about 3 p.m. the appellant went out to the Yard and, after making a round, came to the place which was companyparatively secluded.
The appellant then took out the currency numberes from his pocket and handed them over to the magistrate.
The prosecution case was that the appellant demanded from Shukla Rs.
375 from Shukla but his case was that at his request Shukla had advanced the said amount to him by way of loan for meeting the expenses of the clothing of his children who were studying in school.
It is against this order that the present appeal by special leave has been preferred by the appellant.
He then asked Shukla to pay the money and Shukla gave him a bundle companytaining the marked currency numberes of the value of Rs.
Frank Anthony, Udai Pratap Singh and P. C. Agarwala, for the appellant.
Accordingly, a party companysisting of Shukla, the magistrate, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and some other persons went to the Loco Yard.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
500 but knowing about his need Shukla offered to advance him the loan, and it was as such loan that Shukla paid him Rs.
The magistrate disclosed his identity to the appellant and asked him to produce the amount paid to him by Shukla.
The agreement then was that Shukla would pay the money to the appellant on January 8, 1953.
400 per month in order that Shukla may be allowed to carry out his companytract peacefully without any harassment.
2/3/32/45 of 1953 55.
He admitted that he had received Rs.
The appellant denied the charge.
The appellant was a Loco Foreman at Alambagh Loco Shed, and Shukla had secured a companytract at the same place for the removal of cinders 76 from ash pits and for loading companyl.
Shukla, however, refused to accede to this request and that led to many hostile acts on the part of the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by GAJENDRAGADKAR J. This appeal by special leave Gajendragadkar j. has been filed by C. 1.
The appellant alleged that since he had been in need of money he had requested Kishan Chand to arrange for a loan of Rs.
Emden hereinafter called the appellant who has been companyvicted under s. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947 hereinafter called the Act .
Shukla and Sada Shiv proceeded inside the Yard while the rest of the party stood at the gate.
On January 3, 1953, the appellant again asked Shukla to pay him the monthly bribe as already suggested Shukla then requested him to reduce the demand on the ground that the companytract given to him was for a much lesser amount than that which had been given to his predecessor Ram Ratan the appellant thereupon agreed to accept Rs.
68 of 1958.
December 15.
375 and the appellant accepted the said amount.
C. Mathur and O. P. Lal, for the respondent.
375 from Sarat Chandra Shukla on January 8, 1953.
The case against him was that he had accepted a bribe of Rs.
Shukla was told by the appellant that he had been receiving a monthly payment from Ram Ratan who had held a similar companytract before him and that it would be to his interest to agree to pay the bribe.
