JUDGMENT

BHAGWATI J.:— This appeal by special leave, is directed against an order of conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant under Sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Sec. 5(1) (d) read with Sec. 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The appellant was tried by the special Judge, Amritsar and for each of the two offences he was convicted and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one and a half years and to pay a fine of Rs. 100/ or in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of three months. This conviction of the appellant was maintained by the High Court in appeal, but the sentence of substantive imprisonment for each of the two offences was reduced from one and half years to one year. The question which arises for consideration in this appeal is : whether, on the evidence on record, the conviction and sentence recorded against the appellant are justified, or they require to be set aside?

2. The appellant was, at the material time a Passenger and Goods Tax Clerk II in the office of the Excise and Taxation Officer, Amritsar. There was also another Passenger and Goods Tax Clerk I in the office, at that time and his name was Har Mohan Singh. One Jagdish Raj along with his brothers jointly owned a truck bearing No. PNA 4228 which stood in his name. Since the truck was old and needed extensive repairs, Jagdish Raj stopped plying it for hire and it remained idle in the workshop of Ajit Singh in the village Bhikhiwind since lst July, 1965. The certificate of registration of the truck was deposited by Jagdish Raj with the Licensing Officer, Amritsar since he was not plying the truck. It appears that by an order dated 12th May, 1967 exemption had already been granted to Jagdish Raj from payment of goods tax in respect of the truck for the period of seven quarters from lst July, 1965 to list March, 1967. But the goods tax for the subsequent quarters from lst April, 1967 remained to be paid by Jagdish Raj. One Brar, who was the Excise and Taxation Inspector at the relevant time insisted on payment of these arrears of goods tax, but on the request of Jagdish Raj, granted him one and a half months time to produce a certificate from the Licensing Officer, Amritsar certifying that the truck had not been plied and that the certificate of registration remained deposited with the Licensing Officer during the quarters from lst April, 1967. The case of the prosecution was that this time was granted by Brar on receipt of illegal gratification to the tune of about Rs 20/-. However, some twenty days thereafter, Brar came to Bhikhiwind and impounded the truck for non-payment of arrears of goods tax and handed it over at the police station for safe custody. On learning about this event, Jagdish Raj once again contacted Brar and on further demand being made by him, Jagdish Raj paid for the benefit of Brar a sum of Rs. 10/- to the keeper of the hotel where Brar had stayed. Jagdish Raj entreated Brar to release the truck but the latter was adamant and insisted that he would not release the truck until the exemption certificate from the Licensing Officer, Amritsar was produced and ultimately told Jagdish Raj that he should contact the appellant on 29th July, 1968 as he would be on leave on that day. Jagdish Raj accordingly contacted the appellant in his office on 29 th July, 1968 93 when the appellant confronted him with the demand of a bribe of Rupees 400/- for Brar and Rs. 50/- for himself if Jagdish Raj wanted his work in connection with the release of the truck to be carried out expeditiously. Jagdish Raj entreated the appellant that he was not in a position to pay the large amount demanded by the appellant, but the latter remained firm and refused to reduce the amount of the bribe. On the next day, that is 30th July, 1968, Jagdish Raj again contacted the appellant and repeated his request for reduction in the amount of the bribe but the appellant declined to accept a lesser amount.

3. Jagdish Ra