30/ which had been advanced by him to the companyplainant on November 1, 1965.
Appeal by Special leave from the Judgment and Order dated the 6th July, 1970 of the Rajasthan High Court at Jodhpur in B. Criminal Appeal No.
100/ on each companynt.
1501 from his Provident Fund Account.
He has been sentenced the undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.
The companyplainant Umashanker is a cleaner in the Loco Shed, Kotah.
A trap was thereafter laid and it is alleged that the appellant accepted from the companyplainant a sum of Rs.
Accordingly, the companyplainant resubmitted his application on the 13th when the appellant is alleged to have renewed his demand for a bribe.
10/ and 51 were treated with sodium carbonate powder and the payment is alleged to have been witnessed by the motbirs Jagdish Prasad Tiwari and Bhagwandas Makhija.
On April 8, 1966, the companyplainant presented an application to the appellant asking for an advance of Rs.
the application was duly forwarded to the dispatch clerk for obtaining the sanction of the Divisional Superintendents Office.
The two currency numberes of Rs.
He stated that the companyplainant had number presented to him any application at all on April 8 and on the 13th the appli cation was presented number to him but to the Head clerk.
The appellant has been companyvicted under section 5 1 d read with section s 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as also under section 161 of the Penal Code.
On the 12th the Vigilance Officer took the companyplainant to the office of the Special Police Establishment, Jaipur where Inspector Ajmera asked the companyplainant to make one more attempt to present the application to the appellant.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
15/ had passed hands from the companyplainant to the appellant, we have the admission of the appellant himself but quite apart from that admission, there is clear and companyvincing evidence to show that the appellant had accepted the money from the companyplainant.
The appellant admitted the receipt of the amount but companytended that the amount was paid to him by the companyplainant in part payment of a loan of Rs.
On April 10, the companyplainant approached a Vigilance Officer Srinath Sharan Srivastava, and lodged a companyplaint before him that the appellant was demanding a bribe.
According to him the application of the 13th was processed by him in the ordinary companyrse and on the loan being recommended by the Loco Forman.
Nuruddin Ahmad and Sobhagmal Jain, for the appellant Maya Rao, for the respondent.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by CHANDRACHUD, J. In this appeal by special leave the question for companysideration is whether the companycurrent finding of guilt recorded by the learned Special Judge, Jaipur and the High Court of Rajasthan is in accordance with law and the evidence in the case.
It is alleged that the appellant refused to accept the application unless the companyplainant agreed to pay to him a gratification of Rs.
130 of 1970.
The evidence of the companyplainant Umashanker P. W. 4 , Jagdish Prasad P. W. 5 and Bhagwandas Makhija W. 6 leaves numberdoubt on this point.
The appellant was working at the material time, as a clerk in the office of the Loco Foreman, Western Railway, Kotah, one of his duties being to process applications made by a certain class of employees for advances from the Provident Fund Account.
151 on the evening of the 13th at Meghraj Hotel.
342 of 1967.
