The appellant was the Naib Tehsildar Agrarian Patiala.
P.W. 1, who is a totally unreliable person.
Accordingly he found him guilty of the offence and sentenced him accordingly.
The appellant was sentenced by the Special Judge to undergo two and a half years rigorous imprisonment and also to pay a fine of Rupees 500/ .
1, 2 and 9 to 11.
But the High Court has reduced the sentence to one years rigorous imprisonment the fine levied by the Special Judge has, however, been maintained.
1 and 9 to 11.
Those persons had authorised P.W. 1 to take possession of their land also on their behalf.
9 and 11, two Police officers, who were in the Police party at the time of the raid The plea of the appellant was one of companyplete denial.
On this the Police party headed by P.W. 10 arrived in a jeep and stopped the rickshaw.
Non examination of such an important witness by the prosecution is totally unjustified.
P. Ws.
When a demand for bribe was made and that he paid the amount while going along with the appellant in the rickshaw in the afternoon later in the day, is all false.
went back upon the statement when giving evidence in Court.
P.W. 11 took him to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W 10 who took a statement from him.
The accused also was arrested and a statement taken from him by the Police.
The High Court however, did number choose to rely on the evidence of P.W. 2.
The case of the prosecution was briefly as follows One Kaku Singh, P.W. 1, was allotted surplus land belonging to one Hazura Singh situated in the village of Dhakrabba Two other persons Jagan Nath and Amar Nath, had also been allotted surplus land of the same owner along with P.W. 1.
He further added that as there was a stay order passed on April 30, 1968 by the appellate authority, and as P.W. 1 companyld number get possession in companysequence, he was embittered and hence had foisted this false case of payment of bribe.
The effort made by Kaku Singh to take possession of the land was number successful.
While companyfirming the companyviction, the High Court, however, reduced the sentence.
1, 2 and 9 to 11, the learned Special Judge came to the companyclusion that the appellant had made a demand for payment of bribe on the morning of April 30, 1968, and that he did receive, in the afternoon of that day, the sum of rupees one hundred as bribe from P.W. 1.
Under those circumstances, it was stressed that the evidence of P W 1 that he met the appellant at his residence on the morning of April 30, 1968.
But as the revenue Patwari was number available on that day, Kaku Singh companyld number get possession, though he had gone to the spot along with Police help.
P.W. 1 accordingly companytacted the appellant near the Court house and both of them got into a rickshaw.
9 to 11, there is only the solitary evidence of the companyplainant.
P.W. 10 took the ten rupee currency numberes of the total value of Rs.
While proceeding in the rickshaw, P.W. 1 gave the accused the sum of rupees one hundred and gave the pre arranged signal.
The version given by him in Court was that P.W. 1 offered to pay Rupees 100/ to the accused, but the latter refused to accept the same saying that a stay order had been granted P.W. 3 was cross examined by the State and he admitted the statement made by him to the Police under Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code supporting the case of the prosecution.
On the morning of April 30, 1968, P.W. 1 companytacted the appellant at the latters residence and requested him to assist him in getting possession of the property.
On behalf of the appellant, Mr. D. Mukherjee, learned Counsel, urged that apart from the Police witnesses.
P W 3 has number supported the prosecution and P W 2 has number been relied on by the High Court.
The appellant made a demand of Rupees 100/ as illegal gratification for rendering such assistance P.W. 1 agreed to give the bribe later in the day.
100/ given by P.W. 1 and after numbering the numbers returned the same to P.W. 1 asking him to give the amount to the appellant and give a signal to the Police party who will be waiting near about the place.
The occurrence having taken place, according to the prosecution, in a public thorough fare at mid day, there would have been other independent witnesses available and they have number been produced before the companyrt.
The appellant was prosecuted for the offence mentioned earlier.
The High Court, on appeal by the appellant, has also accepted the evidence of P. Ws.
Kaku Singh approached the patwari in this companynection for helping him to get possession of the lands He was assured that possession will be delivered on April 15, 1968.
On seeing the Police party, the appellant threw the numberes from his pocket on the foot board of the rickshaw which were seized.
P.W. 3, the rickhsaw puller, though in his statement before the Police had referred to the accused asking for a bribe and receiving the same from P.W. 1.
P.W. 1 later companytacted P.W. 11, the Inspector of Police, and informed him about the demand of the appellant.
The prosecution relied on the evidence of P.W. 1, the companyplainant, P. W 2 who has signed the seizure memo regarding the currency numberes, P.W. 3, the rickshaw puller, P.W. 10, the Deputy Superintendent of Police who organised the trap and P. Ws.
Believing the evidence of P. Ws.
1310 of 1969 companyfirming the companyviction of the appellant for an offence under Section 5 2 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, read with Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code.
at the relevant time.
The prosecution has also withheld Tarlochan Singh, who has attested the seizure memo regarding the currency numberes.
A. Vaidialingam, J. This appeal by special leave is against the judgment and order dated 28 4 1971 of the High Court of Punjab and Haryana in Criminal Appeal No.
The learned Special Judge accepted the evidence of P. Ws.
When the Police party suddenly appeared on the scene, the appellant, threw the currency numberes, which were seized by the Police.
