54 of 1955, arising out of the judgment and order dated May 23, 1955, of the Court of the Special Judge, Lower Assam Districts at Dhubri in Special Case No.
Khalilur Rahman demanded Rs.
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and order dated December 14, 1955, of the Assam High Court at Gauhati in Criminal Appeal No,.
As to the appellant he was of the opinion that money was taken by him for payment to Khalilur Rahman as illegal gratification and whether he actually paid it to him or number the offence fell under s. 165A and therefore he held the appellant guilty under that section.
In this he was supported by the appellant and three others.
The evidence of the companyplainant was that before Rs.
80 and made to execute a pronote for Rs.
The same day there was a meeting at Futkibari Middle English School where the Deputy Commissioner was present.
Nur ud Din Ahmad and K. R. Chaudhury, for the appellant.
Both the appellant and Khalilur Rahman were companyvicted of the offences with which they were charged and sentenced to one.
200 was demanded from him, the appellant and Khalilur Rahman went aside and had some talks and companying together accused Khalilur Rahman demanded Rs.
of paddy for sale to Billashiparabazar along the path which runs by the side of the river Gauranga.
The companyplainant presented to him a written companyplaint describing how he was forced to pay Rs.
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION Criminal Appeal No.
203 of 1956.
The appellant before us was tried for an offence under s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code for having abetted one Khalilur Rahman in the companyimission of an offence by the latter under s. 161, Indian Penal Code.
The Judgment of the Court was delivered by KAPUR, J. This appeal by special leave is directed against the judgment and order of the High Court of Assam.
2 of 1954.
January 13.
On May 11, 1952, the companyplainant approached the appellant for the refund of his money and the return of his pronote and although the appellant promised he did number do so.
200 as bribe and threatened the company plainant that unless the amount demanded was paid his cart and paddy would be seized.
Naunit Lal, for the respondent.
When he had gone only a short distance he was stopped by the paddy checking Inspector, Khalilur Rahman, who was accompanied by the appellant and three others.
Thereupon both Khalilur Rahman and the appellant were prosecuted, the former under s. 161, Indian Penal Code, read with s. 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 2 of 1947 and the latter under s. 165A and they were companyvicted and sentenced by the Special Judge as already stated.
