Judgement

P. JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J. :-:This appeal is by Special Leave against the Judgment of the Bombay High Court which reversed the order of acquittal of the Appellant passed by the Special Judge, Thana and convicted him of an offence under Sec. 161 I. P. C. as also under Sec. 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting illegal gratification of Rupees 25/-.

2. The Complainant Bommayya Bondayya Dhanpilley, P. W. 1 was running a Hotel at Bhiwandi, where he would prepare and serve customers meals and tea for which a Hotel licence was obtained by him under the Public Entertainment Rules made under the Bombay Police Act. The licence was current for the year January 1, 1965 to December 31, 1965. According to P. W. 1 he entered into an agreement with his friend one Sidhu Korga Shetty P. W. 10 on the 18th January, 1965 Ex. 9 under which P. W. 10 agreed to take the hotal on rent for 11 months from 11-1-65 at Rs. 100/- per month and to pay an advance of Rs. 1,000/-. It also appears that under Rule 5 of the Public Entertainment Rules a licence granted under Rule 3 was not transferable but was for the benefit only of the person to whom it was granted. So that even on the death of such person, it was deemed to have been revoked at once. Further under Rule 8 no person keeping a place of public entertainment shall be absent without the previous permission of the District Magistrate and no such person shall at any time permit any other person to act for him in the management of such place without the like permission similarly endorsed.

3. The case of the prosecution is that on 17-1-65 the Appellant who in the beginning of 1965 was working as Head Constable at Bhiwandi Police Station visited the Complainant s Hotel at about 6 p.m. where he found the Complainant at the Galla and Shetty, standing by his side. The Appellant enquired whether Shetty s name was shown in the licence. The complainant then told the Appellant that Shetty was his friend so that he helps him in the Hotel affairs. The Appellant however, was not satisfied with this explanation and told the Complainant that he would file a case because Shetty was working as a Manager at the Galla though his name was not shown in the licence. It is further the case of the prosecution that after some discussion the Appellant said that if he would pay Rs. 30/- per month until the name of Shetty was entered in the licence, he would be satisfied. The complainant pleaded that his business was not such as to permit him to pay the amount demanded. On hearing this the Appellant went away. The next day P. W. 1 and P. W. 10 had gone to the Mamlatdar s office, gave an application for Sugar and were returning when the Appellant met them. He called the Complainant and informed him that he had filed a case against him and that he the Complainant should deposit Rs. 5/- as security for his appearance. Though at first the complainant pleaded that he had no money he, however, paid this amount and obtained a receipt in the name of Shetty. On 6-2-65 at about 4 p.m. P. W. 1 met the Appellant at Kalyan Naka when he was told by the Appellant that another case would be filed against him and his licence would be cancelled. P. W. 1 said that he was a poor man and could not pay so much but the Appellant insisted that Rs. 30/- should be paid. However the demand was reduced to Rs. 25/- p.m. which P. W. 1 promised to pay the next day. When the Appellant enquired when he should come to collect the money. P. W. 1 replied that he should come on the 8th either in the morning or in the evening and the amount would be paid to him in the shop, after which they parted. P. W. 1 thereafter decided to inform the Anti-corruption authorities at Thana; so he came by Bus on 7-2-65 and narrated the incident to the Anti-corruption Officer who recorded his First Information Report as per Ex.10. The Complainant P. W. 1 was asked to come the next morning and after he had come there as direct