Judgment

UNTWALIA, J.: - The appellant in this appeal by special leave has been convicted under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - hereinafter called the Act, read with Section 5 (1) (d) and under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The Trial Judge sentenced the appellant under each count to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years. Sentences to run concurrently. He was also sentenced to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/- under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act. The Delhi High Court dismissed the appellant s appeal subject to the reduction in his sentences. The concurrent sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 2 1/2 years has been reduced to one year under each count and the imposition of fine of Rs. 1,000/- has been reduced to Rs. 500/-.

2. The appellant was a quasi-permanent Lower Division Clerk of the Central Secretariat Clerical Service, Grade II and was borne on the cadre of Community Development and Co-operation. At the relevant time he was working as Inspector in the Rationing Department

3. P. W. 3 Madan Lal was the owner of a Rationing Depot in Gandhi Nagar, Delhi. His complaint was that the appellant had been demanding Rs. 100/- per month by way of bribe under threat of implicating him in some false case. The appellant came to the said witness on 1-7-1967 and demanded the payment of Rs. 100/- that very day. Madan Lal complained to P. W. Gian Chand Sharma, a Municipal Councillor about this demand and the latter called him to his house in the afternoon. P. W. S. L. Arora, Assistant Controller of Rationing was called to the Councillor s place. He after recording the statement of Madan Lal, initialled 8 currency notes of Rs 10/- each, of the total value of Rs. 80/- .Shri Arora instructed Madan Lal to go to the appellants office along with two witnesses. Madan Lal proceeded to the appellant s office with P. W. 5 Agya Ram Batra and P. W. 8 Deputy Lal Talwar. He handed over the amount of Rs. 80/- to the appellant saying that he would pay Rs. 20/- later on. On the giving of signal by Deputy Lal, Arora arrived and recovered the currency notes from the pocket of the appellant s bush-shirt. The amount recovered from the appellant s bush-shirt consisted of the same 8 currency notes which had been earlier initialled by Arora. After obtaining the sanction of P. W. 1 S. P. Iyer, Deputy Secretary, Department of Community Development and Co-operation, Government of India for the prosecution of the appellant and after investigation the police flied a challan against him under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act and under Section 161 of the Penal Code.

4. The appellant admitted the receipt of the sum of Rs. 80/- in the 8 currency notes from Madan Lal but denied to have received the sum by way of illegal gratification or by corrupt or illegal means abusing his position as public servant. He gave an interesting and curious explanation of the receipt of Rs. 80/- by him from Madan Lal.

5. The two Courts below relying upon the evidence of Prosecution Witnesses Madan Lal, Arora, Agya Ram and Deputy Lal and rejecting the explanation of the appellant as untrue have convicted and sentenced him as stated above.

6. Mr. K. B. Rohtagi, learned counsel for the appellant made the following submissions to press for the acquittal of his client:

(1) That the sanction given by P. W. Iyer in this case was invalid and not in accordance with Section 6 of the Act.

(2) That P. W. Arora had no authority to lay a trap or to search the person of the appellant or to make an investigation in the case. Whatever was done by him was in contravention of Section 5-A of the Act.

(3) That neither of the charges under Section 5 (1) (d) of the Act or Section 161 of the Penal Code was legally proved against the appellant.

7. The High Court has elaborately and fully dealt with the submissions made on behalf of the appellant many of which were repeated in this Court. We see no justification to interfere with the order of the High Court.

8. As already stated the appellant was a q