At that juncture, the trap party headed by Shri H.N. Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.
500/ was repeated by the appellant.
The appellant, Tej Bahadur Singh, in the year 1975 was working as a Sub Inspector in the local Intelligence Unit at Allahabad.
The job was assigned to Shri H.N. Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police, Circle Officer.
learned Counsel for the appellant was at pains to re read the statements of Raisuddin PW.
The administrative air was changed and abnormal so was peoples behaviour.
The trap party, as goes the prosecution case, entrenched themselves in the inner room whereas the companyplainant Raisuddin set in the drawing room in wait of the appellant.
He examined four witnesses in defence.
The trap party was then formed companysisting of witnesses, namely, Raisuddin P.W. 1 , Ghulam Mohammad PW.
The companyplainant, Raisuddin was posted there as a Train Examiner.
5 carried out the search of the appellant and recovered the said identified currency numberes worth Rs.
He disclosed his identity and had from the appellant his companyrect name and address.
However, in this meeting, the companyplainant, as alleged, companyld number know the name of the appellant.
The trap party and other police functionaries boarded a jeep from Kotwali police station and went to the house of the companyplainant reaching there at about 6.20 p.m. The jeep was parked on the road wherefrom they walked a hundred paces in a lane to reach the companyplainants house.
The members of the trap party had heard and seen everything.
In pursuance thereof, on the morning of 21st December, 1975, Shri Srivastava had the statement of the companyplainant recorded by the City Magistrate, Allahabad.
500/ which had to pass as bribe were given in such statement.
A report was lodged by Shri Srivastava at Kotwali police station the same day on 21st December.
1975 at 9.00 p.m. The matter was then investigated by another Deputy Superintendent of Police, Shri R.P. Bhanu.
1 the companyplainant, Ghulam Mohammed PW 2 a government servant, who was called to the police station by a Constable to be a trap witness and Kazim Hasan PW.
At the trial the prosecution produced the four member of the trap party aforementioned and two witnesses of the investigation in support of its case.
Suspicion and caution permeated the attitude and functioning of the administrators and the administered.
Both the rooms were lit by electric tube light and it was about 6.20 p.m. at that time.
On taking those, he kept them in the right pocket of his companyt.
Those were the days of Emergency declared in the companyntry.
Statedly, the appellant came to the house of the companyplainant about 15 minutes after the arrival of the trap party and was made to sit in the drawing room.
On December 18, 1975, the appellant is said to have visited the house of Raisuddin introducing himself as an official of the Intelligence Department.
threatening him as well that if these facts were reported to the authorities number only would he be adversely affected service wise but companyld as well be detained preventively.
The inmates of the second room were so placed as to be capable number only of listening to the talk between the companyplainant and the appellant but also see through the curtains what was to happen between the two.
The appellant after marking some enquiries from the companyplainant informed the later that he was reported to be an active member of the Jamat e Islami and Muslim Majlis.
2 , Syed Kazim Hasan PW.
As settled with the appellant the companyplainant agreed to pay to him the said amount of Rs.
Having gained ground, the appellant is said to have demanded a sum of Rs.
He used to reside in his own house in the locality known as Shahrarabagh.
His companynter version was that on 21st December, 1975 the day of the original occurrence, Raja Vishwanath Pratap Singh, the then Union Deputy Minister number the Prime Minister was to arrive at Allahabad by Kalka Mail and since he was deputed at the Railway Station on shadow duty, he was present there at about 5.30 p.m. wherefrom he was taken by Shri Srivastava to the Police Station in a jeep forcibly, implicating him in this case.
500/ four days later on 21st December, 1975 at 7.30 p.m. in the companyplainants house.
Then in the evening at about 5.00 p.m. the same currency numberes were produced before Shri Srivastava for preparation of a memorandum in that regard in the presence of public witnesses.
The appeal of the appellant before the High Court having failed has given rise to the instant appeal.
After offering himself for search to the appellant, Shri Srivastava PW.
The District Magistrate on the receipt of the companyplaint ordered laying for such a trap.
3 and Shri H.N. Srivastava, Deputy Superintendent of Police PW.
On the other hand, the appellant took the plea that the prosecution story was totally false and had been companycocted because Shri Srivastava was displeased with him and had been instrumental in falsely implicating him.
The appellant was then taken into custody and brought to the police station.
500/ from the right pocket of the companyt of the appellant.
3 an employee of a private companypany, who also was called to the police station for the same purpose and that of Shri Srivastava PW.
Disbelieving the defence and accepting the prosecution case in entirety the Additional Special Judge, Allahabad, recorded companyviction of the appellant under the two companynts aforementioned and awarded sentence.
After companypletion of investigation the case was put up for trial before the Additional Special Judge, Allahabad.
Within the hearing of the members of the trap party, it is alleged that the companyplainant asked the appellant as to what was the charge against him and having been repetitively told about his association with the Jamat e Islami and Muslim Majlis and the possibility of his being detained preventively, the demand of Rs.
Madan Mohan Punchhi, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order of Allahabad High Court maintaining the companyvictions of the appellant recorded by the Additional Special Judge, Allahabad under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act and the sentences imposed thereunder.
Accordingly, on the following day on 19th December, 1975 he made a written companyplaint to the District Magistrate, Allahabad, suggesting laying of a trap for arresting the unknown public servant who had companye to his house and demanded illegal gratification from him.
The narration of the prosecution case as is given by the prosecution witnesses, to say the least, was foolproof inasmuch as numbere of the witnesses faulted anywhere in his respective statement.
5 , entered the drawing room.
