Maya, PW 2, and Mst Jayna PW 8.
The witness then left for patrol duty, after telling the accused about the telephone message.
Recovery of the tainted numberes from the person of the accused.
Dal Chand PW 7 and Inspector Paras Nath PW 9 are the only witnesses who have deposed to this fact For proof of this fact, support has also been sought from the evidence of the hostile witnesses, PW 3 4.
Appeal by Special Leave from the Judgment and order dated the 9th March 1971 of the Delhi High Court at New Delhi in Criminal Appeal No.
The story of the advance payment of Rs.
They are Ramesh PW 1, Dal Chand PW 7 and Inspector Parasnath, PW 9.
Frank Anthony o. P. Soni and E. C. Agarwala for the Appellants.
Excepting with regard to the reticence of the accused on the query made by the Inspector, Sohan Pal Singh, who was supposed to have kept close companypany with Dal Chand, did number support the prosecution at all.
on being accused by the Inspector, that he had obtained a bride, the appellant kept mum and did number protest or refute the accusation.
On a number of occasions I saw them ac companypanied by prostitutes of G.B. Road.
The appellant kept mum.
100 from Ramesh and party, warning that in the event of number payment, they would be Implicated in some case.
Inside they found him sitting on a company and Ramesh PW squatting on the floor.
Mumtaz, who was expected from Bombay by train at about 1.45 P.M. The appellant questioned if Mumtaz was being brought to Delhi for prostitution.
PW 1 stated that they were all taken by a Constable to a room and there the appellant gave him a beating.
They were out to harm me.
The appellant then went into his room in the Police Post.
The left hand fingers of the appellant were then dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate which turned pink.
10 1951 Ker.
He further stated that at about 5.45 P.M. a telephone call was received from the sister of the accused from Kirti Nagar, whereupon he sent Constable Dev Raj to inform the accused about it.
P.C., the appellant denied the prosecution case, and gave this version of the occurrence.
Constable Dev Raj, DW 3 of the Railway Police Post was examined to show that at the time of occurrence, the appellant was in police uniform and was number wearing the civilian clothes, including the pants from which the tainted currency numberes are alleged to have been recovered.
Further the companyduct of the appellant in number releasing Ramesh forthwith even after the alleged receipt of Rs.
40, showing that on 16 1 1970, the appellant had departed from the Police Post for patrol duty at 4.15 P.M. He.
I reprimanded them several times number to frequent the Railway platforms in that manner.
On a Pew occasions I did number oblige Inspector Paras Nath for getting seats reserved at the Railway Station for his friends and relatives.
70/ in tainted numberes, the further sum of Rs.
He companypared the numbers of the numberes with those numbered in the memorandum PW 3/P. They tallied.
Ramesh and his companypanions refuted the insinuation and informed the appellant that Mumtaz was a dancing girl and number a prostitute.
His room in the Police Post is on one side of the verandah and that of the accused on the other side at a distance of hardly six feet.
According to the appellant these pants were hanging on a peg in his room.
30 there and then to the appeIlant.
Then the evidence of these witnesses was replete with discrepancies, companytradictions and improbable versions.
Pl to P7, from the pocket of the pants which the appellant was then wearing.
70/ on the suggestion of the women, the appellant detained Ramesh but let of the women with the direction to send the balance of Rs.
My room is hardly 8x4 1/2.
1 37 of 1971.
The said companyduct of the appellant, proceeds the argument, was relevant under sec.
I was afraid that they might create trouble for my bail and there fore I did number resist or protest.
At that time Incharge, Police Post was busy in a company versation on telephone.
The latter insisted that they would number be released unless they paid the balance of Rs.
Dal Chand has said that the appellant did number, on receiving the amount allow Ramesh to go away, but said that Dal Chand companyld go, and that Ramesh would be sent later on.
The prosecution evidence which is the mainstay of the companyviction of the appellant may be catalogued under these captions Direct Evidence Demand of the bribe Evidence in regard to this fact was given by Ramesh, PW 1, Mst.
The Inspector disclosed his identity and accused the appellant of having received a bribe.
The Inspector then recovered the currency numberes Ex.
I am innocent.
Pointing towards Ramesh, the Inspector asked the appellant as to who he was.
Ramesh and Maya both were being jointly prosecuted.
The appellant replied that he Ramesh had been found loitering outside in suspicious circumstances and was brought for interrogation.
If it were open to an accused person to utilise the aforementioned proviso to urge that the companytradictions point in a particular direction then it is equally open to the prosecution to urge that the companytradictions establish on the record that the statement made earlier to which the statement made in companyrt was companytrary, was the one which was the companyrect statement.
Dal Chand instead, went to the office of the Anti Corruption Police where Inspector Paras Nath recorded his statement, Ex PW 3/A. The Inspector organised a raiding party.
In defence, the appellant examined five witnesses all members of the Police force.
The Panch witnesses were instructed to keep close to Dal Chand to witness the passing of the tainted numberes.
He summoned Surinder Nath PW 3 and Sohan Pal Singh PW 4 , two clerks from the Sales tax office.
Head Constable Jabar Singh DW 1 testified on the basis of the service record, that there was number a single adverse entry in the Character Roll of the appellant, and that numberless than 60 companymendation certificates, some of them accompanied by cash rewards, were awarded to.
Just at that time Inspector Paras Nath came there and secured me near the door of my room.
In the companytext, it may be numbered that apart from Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURIDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
8, Evidence Act and was a detention pointer towards his guilt.
This was sharply companytradicted by Mst Jayna, according to whom, it was Mst.
The recorded statement of Dal Chand was then read out to Dal Chand and was admitted to be companyrect by him in the presence and hearing of the Panch witnesses.
l got companyfused on seeing the Anti Corruption Staff.
Mum taz, who was expected from Bombay by 1.45 p.m. train.
Finding them loitering there, a companystable of the Railway police took them to the appellant at the Railway Police Post where he was posted as an Assistant Sub Inspector.
505 of 1968 Raj Kumar v. Staie delivered on the 7th April 1970 produced by the appellants A. I. R. 1969 A. P. 271.
No proceedings of the type mentioned above took place in my room.
Jayna returned to their residence on G.B. Road and informed Dal Chand PW 7 all about the incident.
Ramesh said that they had companye to receive one Mst.
The treated numberes were then returned to Dal Chand with the direction that he should hand over the same to the appellant on demand.
If the defence evidence were to be believed at the material time, the appellant was in police uniform patrolling the Railway platform and he was number wearing the pants from the pocket of which the tainted currency numberes are alleged to have been recovered.
He demonstrated to the witnesses how the fingers of a person touching a numbere treated with such powder would turn violet when dipped in a solution of sodium carbonate.
He testified that on 16 1 1970 at about 4.45 p.m., the Incharge Police Post directed the witness to companyvey a message to the appellant that he was wanted on the telephone to receive a call from his sister from Kirti Nagar.
Constable Muharrar Sujan Singh, DW 4, produced the Daily Diary of the Police Post, companytaining entry No.
I have served in the Police Department for the last 19 years and there is number a single ad verse entry major or minor in my service book.
A. I. R. 1960 Mys.
The appellant than told Dal Chand to go away, and assured the latter that Ramesh would be releated.
him since his joining the Police force on 7 6 1951.
At that time the witness was attending to another telephone message, companysequently, the accused went into his room.
Jayna, that it was PW 1 alone who was first rounded up by the Cons table.
Om Prakash Sahni, DW 5, is an important witness examined by the defence.
l00/ but later received Rs.
Accordingly, the witness went and companyveyed the message to the appellant who was then in uniform, patrolling the Railway platform.
I was carrying a baton in my hand.
Constable Sardar Singh DW2, proved with reference to the official records brought by him that Ramesh PW 1 was companyvicted and fined on 14 1 1966 by a Delhi Magistrate under s. 12 of the Gambling Act.
I was wearing my uniform.
The dimensions of the room of the accused are 7x6 and it has only one door which opens into the verandah.
Maya PW2 and Jayna PW 8 went to the Railway Station to receive one Mst.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by SARKARIA, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi upholding the companyviction and sentence of the appellant under s. S 2 read with s. 5 1 d of the Prevention of Corruption Act and s. 161 Penal Code.
I came to the Police Post through an entrance towards the plat form.
30/ was number recovered from the appellant or from anywhere in the Police Post.
After a companyple of minutes when the A appellant was free from that talk, and was alone, Dal Chand approached him and said that he was the brother of Ramesh PW 1 and had been sent by the women to pay him Rs.
The witness swore that between 5.30 P.M. and 6 P.M., the accused was on patrol duty.
Dal Chand and his companypanions found the appellant talking to some per son just outside the Police Post.
I was sent for by the Incharge Police Post through Dev Raj Constable.
Rana v. State A.I.R. 1965 Orissa 31.
After preparing the seizure memo and the raid report PW 9/A , the Inspector sent the same to the police Station for registration of the formal First Information Report.
The recovered pants was hanging on a peg in my room and it was removed from there by the Inspector.
He is a Sub Inspector who at the relevant time, was the charge of the Police Post of New Delhi Railway Station.
They often used to companye to the Railway Station to solicit customers who were visitors to Delhi.
Maya and number PW 1 who had given this money to the appellant.
Examined under s 342, Cr.
Ramesh paid Rs.
Inspector Paras Nath and party followed the appellant into the room.
I knew Dal Chand and Ramesh, They are pimps.
70/ from Dal Chand and put the currency numberes in the left side pocket of his pants which he was then wearing.
I left the Police Post at 4.15 p.m. in uniform for patrol duty at the New Delhi Railway Station platforms because there is a heavy rush of trains at that time.
151 of 1970.
Circumstantial Evidence The circumstance that Ramesh was found detained by the appellant.
According to him, on 16 1 1970, he was throughout present in his room from 1.30 P.M. to 5.55 P.M. During this period he did number see any stranger, or suspect in the room of the accused.
70/ to Dal Chand for securing the release of Ramesh.
After companypleting the investigation and securing the necessary sanction for prosecution of the appellant, he laid a charge sheet against him in the companyrt of the Special Judge, Delhi.
Delhi Railway Station at about 5.25 p.m. Dal Chand and Sohan Pal Singh were directed to go ahead while the rest of the party took up positions nearby.
1, 7 and 9.
Maya then hand ed over Rs.
70/ for getting Ramesh released.
70/ as gratification, was number the natural companyduct of a person whose demand for a bribe had been satisfied.
In response to the message sent by the witness, Sat Pal accused in Police uniform came from the side of the Railway platform to the Post.
C. Mahajan and R. N. Sachthey for Respondent.
The facts are these On 16 1 1970, Ramesh Kaka PW l .Mst.
The appellant gave a beating to Ramesh and demanded an explanation as to why they had companye to the Rail way Station.
Counsel has number tried to support the use of the police statements of PWs 3 and 4 made by the High Court.
DW 5 companypletely discounted the prosecution version.
The High Court has number touched their evidence at all.
The appellant then demanded a bribe of Rs.
The appellant first demanded Rs.
He further admitted that in 1969, Mst.
I entered my room and placed the baton on the table.
He had strained relations withme.
Passing of tainted currency numberes, P1 to P7 to the accused Evidence with regard to this fact was given by Dal Chand PW 7 and Inspector Paras Nath, PW 9.
Maya and Mst.
This Mumtaz was number produced by the prosecution, though she was repeatedly summoned.
He admitted that Ramesh, Maya and Jayna were arrived by the Police under the Suppression of Immoral Traffic Act, and the charge against him and Ramesh was that they were pimps and their women companypanions were carrying on the profession of prostitution.
Maya was companyvicted under the said Act by a Delhi Magistrate.
stated that there was a Standing order according to which all Police Officers going on patrol were peremptorily required to go in uniform.
sufficient to establish the passing of the tainted numberes to the accused and the subsequent recovery of the same from him.
