Then on 27 6 83, P.W I met the appellant in his office at about 12 30 p.m. when he was told that unless mamool was paid, necessary orders companyld number be passed and for that he demanded Rs.
The prosecution in support of its case, examined P.Ws.
Engineer, DW 1, who is subordinate to him.
Then, it is alleged, that he met the appellant twice on 25 6 83 but without any success.
The appellant who at the relevant time was working as an Executive Engineer has been tried and found guilty under Section 161 of the I.P.C., and Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act read with Section 5 1 d thereof.
PW 1 was number in a mood to pay the bribe.
The appellants, in turn, had to do so on the basis of the report given by an Asstt.
PW 11 asked the accused to give the money which he denied and he also told the Dr S.P. that he has number seen PW 1 in person at any time.
P.W 1 proceeded to state that at about 4 p.m. he went to the room of the accused and told him that he has brought the money as per his request and he put the two currency numberes of Rs.
1 to 3 and 5 11.
In the morning he went to the Collectors office and in the afternoon he went to inspect a site and reported to the office only at 4 p.m. and when he was in the office and talking to DW 2, a trap party entered into the office and then took the currency numberes from his drawer.
200/ .
Then ultimately on 27 683 he went to the office of the appellant at about 12 30 p.m. and the appellant told him that he must give the necessary mamool i.e. Rs.
Immediately thereafter the Dr. S.P. and the other members of the trap party entered into the office.
3,11 and the mediators entered into the office of the appellant and found him seated in his chair and came to know that the sum was in the drawer of his table.
The trial companyrt companyvicted the appellant for the said offences and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for one year under each companynt and the sentences were directed to run companycurrently.
The accused in his defence examined DWs.
The sum was recovered and a usual Phenolphthalein test was carried out, and a Mahazar was prepared incorporating all the proceedings.
However, the sentence of imprisonment has been reduced to six months R.I. Hence, the present appeal pursuant to the special leave granted.
He further pleaded that he was innocent and the whole case was foisted on him.
As early as 22 5 83, PW 5 submitted a renewal application and the licence companyld be renewed only after a fitness certificate regarding the building was issued by the Executive Engineer, namely, the appellant.
Thereafter he went to the Dr. S.P. and gave the report and the Dr. S.P. , P.W 11, called two witnesses and in their presence the two currency numberes of Rs.
100/ denomination in the left drawer of the table of the accused, as told.
He deposed that he was going to the office of the accused on the earlier dates with regard to the fitness certificate for renewal of the licence of the theatre.
Though PW 4, an LDC in the same office, who figured as a prosecution witness , supported the accused but he was treated hostile.
The companyvicted accused preferred an appeal before the High Court which was dismissed.
100/ denomination each were subjected to Phenolphthalein test and a Mahazar was.
PW 5istheownerof a theatre at Kodakaraand P.Ws.
The accused was arrested and after companypleting the investigation a charge sheet was laid.
The plea of the accused is that on that date he was number in the office either at 12 30 p.m. when the P.W I claims to have met him and that he was attending to some other work along with his companyofficers.
PW 3, a Police Constable, was asked to go along with P.W 1 and wait outside to give the necessary signal after P.W 1 hands over the money.
Regarding the earlier meeting at about 12 30 p.m. as well as handing over the money to the accused at 4 00 p.m. we have the evidence of solitary witness namely P.W 1.
drawn up.
Thereafter a trap party went to the office of accused and stopped at a distance and then P.W. 1 was asked to go with the money into the office of the accused and after handing over the money was asked to give a signal which had to be relayed by PW 3.
According to the prosecution, on 27 6 83 at about 4 p.m. the trap party went to the office as per the prearranged plan and P.W 1 went inside and a little later, gave the necessary signal which was relayed, P.Ws.
1 7 are his sons.
500/ in default to suffer simple imprisonment for one month.
DW 1 was personally taken by PW 1 to the appellant on 22 6 83 and told him that the licence has to be renewed on or before 25 6 83 and therefore the certificate had to be issued, for which the appellant did number oblige.
P.W. 1 was managing the theatre.
However, there was a report given by DW 1 on 22 6 83 but the fitness certificate was number issued for some reason or the other.
He went to the Vigilance Police and gave the information to Dr. Superintendent of Police, PW 11, and on the same day a case was registered, observing the usual formalities and a trap was arranged.
He further pleaded that he did number receive any sum from P.W 1.
He was instructed by the Dr. S.P. to go along with PW 3 and after handing over the money give the necessary signal.
The tainted money was subjected to Phenolphthalein test and a Mahazar was drawn.
200/ , P.W. 1 promised to bring the money after lunch.
Then the Dr. S.P. asked Sasidharan Nair, PW 2, to open the drawer of his table upon which they found two currency numberes.
PW 2 and two other Gazetted Officers were arranged as witnesses for the trap.
Then he went out and gave the necessary signal relayed by PW 3.
A licence to run the same was issued by the Panchayat and the same was to expire on 25 6 83.
