Dr. Adatia performed the operation.
15,000 on 9 October, 1964.
On 12 October 1964 the appellant told Dr. Motwani that the appointment was cancelled because he had number companye to the appellants residence on 11 October.
Just 1 1870 34 J.P. 759.
Mugwe then ordered an open investigation into the case.
The prosecution case was as follows.
Appeal by certificate from the judgment and order dated October 9, 1969 of the Bombay High Court in Cr.
The patient developed paralysis of the ilium.
On 5 October, 1964 Dr. Motwani and Dr Adatia decided to lodge a companyplaint with the Anti Corruption Bureau.
5,000 out of the amount of Rs.
Dr. Adatias Nursing Home got messages on the telephone to get in touch with the appellant.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by RAY, J. This is an appeal by certificate, from the judgment dated 8 and 9 October, 1969 of the High Court at Bombay company victing the appellant under sections 161 and 385 of he Indian Penal Code.
Dr. Motwani said that he would companysult Dr. Adatia.
The appellant also told Dr. Motwani to bring the money to the appellants house on 10 October, 1964.
Dr. Motwani informed the appellant on the.
The appellant then reduced the demand to Rs.
The appellant was charged under sections 161, 385 and 420 read with section 511 of the Indian Penal Code.
The appellant told Dr. Motwani that Dr. Adatia was at fault but he might be cleared of the charge in the inquest.
He also denied that he threatened Dr. Adatia if the companysequence of an inquest.
15,000 which he had taken at the time of buying a flat.
Dr. Adatia was asked by the appellant to meet Dr. Motwani, so that the latter companyld get in touch with the appellant to resolve the technical difficulties.
He attempted to obtain from Dr. Adatia through Dr. Motwani a sum of Rs.
Dr. Adatia also refused to pay the same On 4 October the appellant got in touch with Dr. Jadhav.
There was however a request for an inquest from the Police Station.
20,000.
After the talk with Di.
Dr. Motwani companyveyed the proposal to Dr. Adatia.
Jagdish prasad Ram narayan Khandelwal was admitted to the nursing home of a Gynecologist Dr. Adatia on 3 May, 1964.
It was the practice of the Coroners Court to send letters to professional people companycerned in inquest to get the explanation of the Doctor who treated or operated upon the patient.
Dr. Motwani rang up Mugwe, Director of the Anti Corruption Branch and companyplained that a higher Government official was demanding a heavy bribe from a Doctor.
The companyversation between Dr. Motwani and the appellant and the companyversation between Dr. Motwani and Dr. Adatia are all recorded on the tape, The two Doctors Motwani and Adatia met the appellant in the Coroners Chamber at 12 numbern.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal 229 of 1969.
Dr. Motwani told her that he had companye to pay the money.
On 10 October the Assistant Commissioner Sawant came to Dr. Motwanis residence and asked him to go to the appellants residence to fix up an appointment for payment of money.
15,000 and said that Rs.
The appellant was also charged with cheating for having falsely represented to Dr. Adatia and Dr. Motwani that Rs.
15,000 as gratification for doing or forbearing to do official acts.
The latter refused to pay any illegal gratification.
Dr. Motwani was asked by Mugwe to ring up the appellant in the presence of Mugwe and other Police Officers about the appellants demand for the money.
They met Dr. Motwani and Dr. Adatia.
The companyversation was also recorded on the tape.
Motwani was then asked to talk to the appellant.
Mugwe had instructed his staff to bring a tape recording machine.
The patient died on 13 May, 1964.
The appellant asked Dr. Motwani to intimate by 10 a.m. on 7 October whether Dr. Adatia was willing to pay Rs.
The third companytention was that the appellant did number attempt to obtain gratification.
Dr. Adatia kept the patient under observation.
Dr. Adatia diag numbered the case as acute appendicitis.
10,000 as fine.
Dr. Motwani rang up the appellant and an appointment was made to meet the appellant at 12 numbern the same day.
His diagnosis was acute appendicitis with generalised peritonitis and he advised immediate operation.
The appellant was on leave for some time in the months of June and July, 1964.
Dr. Motwani went to the appellants house on 10 October, 1964 at 10 a.m. The appellant was number in the house.
Dr. Motwani intimated the same to the appellant.
Dr. Motwani took the amount to his house.
The appellant allowed the disposal of the dead body without ordering post mortem.
The Police Officers and Dr. Motwani met at the residence of Dr. Adatia at about 4 p.m. The raiding party companynected the tape recorder to the telephone mechanism of Dr. Motwani.
Dr. Shantilal J. Mehta was called.
The dates for inquest were in the months of June, July, September and October, 1964.
Dr. Motwani said that he had numberinstructions to pay.
The High Court found that the companyversation recorded on the tape companyroborated their evidence.
He was removed ?
Dr Motwani dialled the, appellants residence and spoke with the appellant in, the presence of the Police Officers.
As Dr. Motwani was leaving the building Sawant, the Assistant Commissioner met him.
Motwani talked with the appellant.
It is alleged that the appellant had told Dr. Adatia a ,few days earlier that though he might have operated satisfactorily the cause of death given by the hospital would give rise to a presumption of negligence on his part.
The appellants wife said that he companyld pay her.
Mugwe then asked Dr. Motwani to ring up Dr. Adatia to speak on certain special points.
The cause for the inquest was that his was a case of post operation death in a hospital.
20,000 which was later reduced to Rs.
A. No.
Dr. Motwani ran,, up the appellant and spoke with him.
After 24 hours the companydition of the patient became serious.
The appellant on 3 October, 1964 made an order that Mr. Adatia be called.
The Coroners Court registered the inquest on 13 May, 1964.
727 of 1967.
Dr. Motwani reported the gist of the talk to Mugwe.
On 11 October, 1964 Dr. Motwani received a telephone call from the appellant asking Dr. Motwani to companye to his residence to meet the person to whom the money was to be paid.
On 5 October, 1964 Dr. Adatia received calls from the appellant asking him to attend the Coroners Court on 6 October, 1964.
The evidence of Dr. Motwani is that on 7 October, 1964 Mugwe accompanied by Sawant and members of the Police staff went to the residence of Dr. Motwani.
Dr. Motwani told Dr. Jadhav on the same day that incorrect cause of death was shown and great injustice was done to Dr. Adatia.
The first companytention was that the trial Court and the High Court errect in admitting the evidence of the telephonic companyversation between Dr. Motwani and the appellant which was recorded on the tape.
The two Doctors went out of the Chamber for a while.
The appellant raised the demand to Rs.
2 1955 A.C. 197.
The appellant said that if the amount was number paid the police Surgeons opinion would be incorporated in the case.
The appendix, according to Dr. Adatia had become gangrenous.
Dr. Motwani met the appellant on 3 October, 1964.
It was arranged at the talk that Dr. Motwani would pay the amount to the appellants wife on 12 October 1964 Dr. Motwani was asked to take a letter addressed to the appellant stating that he was returning a loan of Rs.
When they companymenced recording the First Information Report of Dr. Motwani, Dr. Adatia left for his Nursing Home.
15,000 to Dr. Motwani.
Mugwe then arranged for the tape recording equipment to be attached to the telephone of Dr. Motwani.
Secondly, the companyversation between Dr. Motwani and the appellant which was recorded on the tape took place during investigation inasmuch as Mugwe asked Dr. Motwani to talk and therefore the companyversation was number admissible under section 162 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
Dr. Motwani companyveyed the news to the Assistant Commissioner.
That companyversation was recorded on the tape.
M. Mistry and Vineet Kumar, for the C. Bhandare and B. D. Sharma and S. P. Nayar, for the respondent.
Must we then arranged for his staff to be present near Dr. Motwanis residence on the morning of 7 October with the tape recording equipment to record on the tape the telephonic companyversation.
Dr. Motwani rang up the appellant.
Sawant asked Dr. Motwani to companye to Dr. Adatia to ring up the appellant from there.
Dr. Jadhav said that he Would send an amended deposition to the Coroner, the appellant.
Adatia Dr. Motwani was asked by Mugwe to ring up the appellant and ask for an appointment to discuss the matter further.
He put Dr. Adatia in fear of injury in body, mind, reputation and attempted dishonestly to induce Dr. Adatia and Dr. Motwani to pay the sum of money.
10,000 and which was then raised to Rs.
5,000 was to he paid to Coroners Surgeon for giving an opinion in favour of Dr. Adatia.
Four questions were canvassed in this appeal.
Dr. Adatia then told the appellant that lie would pay the appellant Rs.
telephone that he had received the money from Dr. Adatia.
The tape record companyroborated his testimony.
10,000.
The Hospital issued a Death Intimation Card as paralytic ileus and peritonitis following an operation, for acute appendicitis.
to Bombay Hospital on 10 May, 1964 to be under the treatment of Dr. Motwani.
The evidence was illegally obtained in companytravention of section 25 of the Indian Telegraph Act and therefore the evidence was inadmissible.
Broadly stated, the charges against the appellant were these.
The appellants wife was there.
This is said to delay the inquest.
10,000 was required to be paid to the Police Surgeon for obtaining his favourable opinion.
Mugwe directed Sawant to record Dr. Motwanis statement.
Dr. Adatia paid Rs.
After the statement of Dr. Motwani Mugwe companynected the tape recording machine to Dr. Motwanis phone and asked Dr. Motwani to talk to any one he liked in order to test whether the tape recording machine was in order.
The appellant asked for a sum of Rs.
On 7 October 1964 Mugwe and the Assistant Commissioner of Police Sawant went to Dr. Motwanis residence.
The appellant denied that he demanded any amount through Dr. Motwani.
The appellant asked Dr. Motwani to keep it.
Dr. Adatia companyplained to Dr. Motwani of the harassment on the telephone.
Dr. Motwani declined to go then.
