10 at once a bribe and a bargain.
The team companysisted of the Deputy Superintendent, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, a head companystable of the railway police, and P.W. 3 himself.
A ten rupee numbere Ex.
PD/1, the accused was charged with an offence of having accepted illegal gratification of Rs.
45 or more.
As ex plained by companynsel for the State, P.W. 3 may well have companyplained of harassment by the accused detaining his bedding and the Deputy Commissioner would have in the usual companyrse directed him to the District head of the police.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated the 15th May, 1970 of the Punjab and Haryana High Court in Criminal Appeal No.
The inconvenient bedding of the Jawan was explained by the accused as having been left behind by P.W. 3 in the heat of the moment and had been kept in the lost property room and entered in the relevant register.
As arranged, P.W. 3 met the accused, made over the money, gave a signal whereupon the party of the Sub Divisional Magistrate closed in on the accused.
The party moved to the railway station and P.W. 4, Lakshmi Narain, also joined them on the way.
The High Court companyfirmed the companyviction.
Since this D.S.P. had numberjurisdiction over the railway premises, he did number act directly but requested the executive magistrate of the place, P.W. 5, who bad already been informed by the Deputy Commissioner to initiate steps for catching A.I.R. 1968 Pun.
He also sent a telephonic message to Shri Dharamvir, Sub Divisional Magistrate, Narnaul, and told him that Sis Ram had been directed to companytact the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, in companynection with his companyplaint.
P.C., and disbelieving the defence witnesses.
15 of 1971.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
Frank Anthony and K. B. Rohatgi, for the appellant.
The latter, number improperly, may well have asked his subordinate to take action.
When the, train reached Ateli Railway station in the afternoon of May 9, 1967, P.W. 3 got down with his baggage and, when he handed over his ticket to the accused, was told that he had to pay extra for his wife and child and excess luggage a sum around Rs.
The accused appellant was an Assistant Station Master at Ateli in May 1967.
The marked numbere was recovered from his right hand vide memo.
A brief statement of the facts will lead to a better appreciation of the arguments urged.
10 on May 11, 1967 from P.W. 3 thereby companymitting criminal misconduct in the discharge of his duties, punishable under s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KRISHNA IYER, J. Mr. Frank Anthony arguing the case for the accused, in this appeal by special leave, has put forward four main companytentions against the appellants is companyviction, namely, a that the prosecution is invalid for want of companypetent sanction b that the investigation is number merely illegal but has in companysequence inflicted serious prejudice on the accused c that the number examination of key witnesses, like the Deputy Superintendent of Police, should have driven the companyrt to draw an adverse inference fatal to the case, and the uncorroborated testimony of accomplices or quasi accomplices should number have been the foundation for a companyviction, and d that the Court bad drawn a presumption under S. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, although there was numberwarrant for it in the present case, the charge having been one under s. 5 1 d , read with s. 5 2 of the said Act.
PI was handed over by P.W.3 to the Sub Divisional Magistrate, who signed on it,.in token whereof a memo was prepared, Ex.
The Special Judge companyvicted the accused, overruling the defence version set up under s. 342, Cr.
Promising to bring the money the next day, W. 3 left the station leaving his bedding as something of a number human hostage which was to be released on the payment of the illicit sum.
W. 3 pleaded that he had numbermoney on him then and was suggested a way out by the payment of Rs.
737 of 1968.
P.W. 3, a member of the Armed Forces, was going back home by train from Udaipur with his wife and child on railway companycession pass, carrying with him a trunk and bedding.
S. Marwah and R. N. Sachthey, for the respondent.
On reaching his village late in the night, P.W. 3, the Jawan, thought of informing the authorities about this harassment.
A.I.R. 1966 Raj.
Accordingly, he companytacted the Deputy Commissioner, Narnaul, on May 11 and related to him what had happened.
The Deputy Commissioner instructed the Superintendent of Police to look into the matter who directed the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Narnaul, to take suitable action.
Thereafter, the Sub Divisional Magistrate lodged a First Information Report with the police, a case was registered and on companypletion of investigation by the Deputy Superintendent of Police having jurisdiction over the Railways, P.W. 7, and after obtaining the statutory sanction, Ex.
P.W. 3 took back the numbere, his body was searched as part of the usual precaution and he was directed to go to the accused and give signal after the money was paid.
thereupon, the Sub Divisional Magistrate, P.W. 5, together with the Deputy Superintendent of Police, decided to organise a trap, on being apprised of the story by P.W. 3.
