Judgment

DUA, J. :- The appellant was the dealing clerk in the Labour Office, Delhi, in April, 1965. He was convicted by the Special Judge, Delhi under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and sentenced to one year s rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 200/- with two months further rigorous imprisonment in case of default. He was also found guilty and convicted of an offence under Section 161, I. P. C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year. The two substantive sentences were directed to be concurrent. His appeal to the High Court of Delhi was dismissed by a learned single Judge. He appeals to this Court by special leave. His application for leave is dated December 20, 1969. In that application one of the grounds taken by him questioned the legality of the investigation into the offence against him by the Deputy Superintendent of the Anti-Corruption Department of the Delhi Administration. According to this ground the Delhi Special Police Establishment Act as amended prescribes special powers and procedure for investigation of offences of bribery and corruption in the departments of the Central Government and as the appellant was an employee of the Central Public Works Department, offence against him could only be investigated by the Special Police Establishment. The investigation having not been done by the D.S.P.E. according to the appellant, his trial is vitiated. In support of this ground the appellant presented in this Court an application dated January 13, 1970 seeking permission to place on the record a letter dated February 10, 1966 purporting to have been written by the S. P. Anti-Corruption Branch, Delhi and addressed to the appellant stating that the anti-corruption branch of Delhi Administration was not competent to make an enquiry into the allegations levelled against C.P.W.D. employee being a Central Government employee. This Court, while granting special leave, also permitted the appellant to urge additional grounds.

2. We now turn to the facts giving rise to this case. One Bakht Ram, a labour supplier had to get about Rs. 3,500/- from one Umrao Singh, a contractor, who was evading this payment. Bakht Ram moved the Labour Officer for relief. The Labour Officer stopped payment to the contractor to the extent of the amount claimed by Bakht Ram but as the case was not being dealt with as expeditiously as Bakht Ram expected or desired, he approached the appellant who was the dealing clerk for expeditious disposal of the case. The appellant demanded Rs. 100/- by way of bribe for using his good offices. The matter was ultimately settled at Rs. 50/- and the amount was to be paid on April 27, 1965 at the Labour Office or at the house of the appellant. Bakht Ram thereupon reported the matter to the Deputy Superintendent of Police (Anti-Corruption Branch) and produced three currency notes of the denomination of Rs. 10/- each which he proposed to pay to the appellant. The numbers of these currency notes were noted by the Deputy Superintendent of Police in the presence of two witnesses and Bakht Ram was instructed to make the payment in the presence of those witnesses. Bakht Ram then proceeded to the office of the Labour Officer along with the said two witnesses followed by the police party headed by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. As the appellant was not present in the office of the Labour Officer the party proceeded to his house. Bakht Ram called the appellant out from his house and they both went to a tea shop nearby. The two witnesses followed them. Within their hearing Bakht Ram told the appellant that he had brought Rs. 30/- with him and that he would pay the balance later. He requested the appellant to see that the Labour Officer passed requisite orders on Bakht Ram s application claiming Rupees 3,500/-. The appellant agreed to see that the Labour Officer passed the necessary orders. He received Rupees 30/- from Bakht Ram and put the currency notes in his pocket. One of the two witnesse