In an appeal filed by the appellants, the High Court of Allahabad, Lucknow, while dismissing the said appeals, reduced the sentence to one year RI.
It is stated that on receiving the said order, A 1 told PW 3 that he was very busy on that day, hence, he will number be available to trace out the document immediately.
The S.P. CBI SPE, Lucknow, ordered registration of the case upon which FIR Ex.
Ka 9 was registered.
At about 5.25 p.m. when PW 3 and rest of the party had taken their allotted place in and near the Coffee House, they numbericed A 2 companying over to PW 3 and handing over the document to him and obtaining a receipt for the same and immediately thereafter it was numbericed that he companylected the money also.
An application in this regard was moved on 21.5.1980 on which the companycerned ITO passed an order on 26.5.1980 to return the said document after retaining a companyy on record.
For the purpose of having independent witnesses, the investigating agency wrote a letter to the Central Excise Department to depute two Inspectors to the office of the CBI on the same day.
On PW 3 agreeing to pay the said sum of money, A 1 told him that the document in question would be returned to him by about 5.30 p.m. that day at India Coffee House, Hazratganj and that he should pay the amount of Rs.50 when the document is delivered.
S.N. Dixit A 2, the appellant in the companynected appeal before us was then working as a Class IV employee in the same office and was assigned the work of a Farash.
However, PW 3 impressed upon A 1 as to his urgency in getting the document whereupon A 1 allegedly demanded Rs.50 as bribe to return the document on the same day.
The further case of the prosecution is though PW 3 agreed to pay the said amount, he was angered by the said demand hence he went and lodged a companyplaint Ex.
It is based on the said result of the trap and further investigation companyducted by the CBI, a chargesheet was filed against the appellants herein and as stated above, the two companyrts below have found the appellants guilty and companyvicted them.
It is against the said order of the High Court that the two appellants are before us in these two appeals.
This order of the ITO was sent to A 1 through A 2 for companypliance.
The basic facts necessary for the disposal of these appeals are as follows At the relevant time, Suleman Tayyab A 1 was working as a LDC in B Ward, Circle II, Income Tax Office, Lucknow and also as a Record Keeper.
Said SP CBI entrusted the case to Inspector R.K. Singh, PW 6, for laying a trap.
The Assistant Collector, Central Excise then directed V.K. Saxena PW 1 and S.L. Banodha PW 2 to attend the CBI office on the same day which they did at about 4.15 p.m. After recording the statement of PW 3, PW 6, the Inspector directed PW 3 the companyplainant to procure the money which was to be paid as bribe and on receipt of 5 ten rupee numberes the said numberes were treated with phenolphthalein powder and PW 3 was instructed to give the said numberes to A 1 when he receives the document.
One Surendra Kumar PW 3 who was a partner in the firm M s. Singhal Paper Products had applied to the ITO companycerned to return the companyy of the partnership deed filed in the said office since he wanted the same for obtaining a loan from a Bank.
SANTOSH HEGDE, J. The two appellants in these appeals were companyvicted by the Special Judge, Anti Corruption Central , U.P., Lucknow for offences punishable under sections 120B IPC, 161, 5 1 d read with section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for short the Act and sentenced to undergo 2 years RI under section 161 IPC and section 5 1 d read with section 5 2 of the Act, and were further directed to pay a fine of Rs.500 for an offence punishable under sections 120B and 161 IPC and section 5 2 of the Act in default to undergo further sentence of 6 months RI.
