JUDGMENT

P. K. GOSWAMI, J.:—The complainant, Shiv Darshan Nath, (PW 1) was an unlicensed hawker selling oranges and fruits in what is described as a chabba around Novelty Cinema area in Delhi. The locality is within the jurisdiction of the Lahori Gate Police Station.

2. The accused Maha Singh was enrolled as a Constable in the Delhi Police in July 1957 and was promoted as Head Constable (Havaldar) in August 1963. He was posted to the Lahori Gate Police Station on November 21, 1967 and had since been serving there in that capacity until his suspension in connection with the present case.

3. During April 1969 the accused was deputed for prosecuting unauthorised squatters and persons indulging in petty offences within the area of the said Police Station. The accused in performance of these duties was required to and did maintain a petty Offences Register and he had "to do pervi of these cases challaned by him in the court."

4. The complainant approached the Anti-Corruption Inspector Delhi, Bal Krishan (PW 7) on April 7, 1969, at about 11.00 A.M. and made 451 a complaint to him. This complaint was recorded by the Inspector (PW 1/A). The material allegations disclosed therein were-

"......Now, for some days a new Havaldar of P. S. Lahori Gate, has been coming there for challaning under Section 33, Bombay Police Act, and he has been harassing people unlawfully. He has chalaned me also a number of times. He drew up one chalan (against me) on 3-4-69, which stands fixed for hearing on 8-4-69, in the court of Shri O. P. Yadav. SDM. This Havaldar says that he will not put up this chalan in case I pay him Rs. 10/-, and that in case I give him Rs. 50/- p.m., I will not be chalaned in future. I am poor man and unable to meet his said desire. On 5-4-69, the Havaldar aforesaid came to me and said that he would come again on 7-4-69 about 3.00 P.M. and that in case rupees ten were not paid, the chalan would be put in Court. Since the Havaldar of Lahori Gate Police Station has demanded Rs. 10/- from me as bribe, I have come for report. Suitable action may be taken.....".

5. The words "against me" in parentheses in the above extract are not to be found in the original statement recorded in the Urdu language. This has to be mentioned as Mr. Frank Anthony appearing on behalf of the accused strenuously submitted that since there had been no chalan against the complainant the entire edifice of the case was destroyed. We felt some doubt about the translation in the paper-book and therefore, looked into the original document and we are satisfied that the words "against me" are not to be found therein.

6. Now following the sequence, the Inspector decided to arrange a raid and summoned two witnesses from the Deputy Commissioner s office (PWs 3 and 4) and recorded in a raid memo the number of the only ten rupee note (P-1) which the complainant had with him. The Inspector proceeded to state that -

"the said G. C. note was later returned to the complainant with a direction to pass it on to the accused within the sight of the panch witnesses having such talk with the accused as to indicate the said G. C. note had been passed on to the accused by way of bribe. Both the panch witnesses were also instructed to remain close to the complainant and the accused, hear their talk, see the passing of the bribe money and on ascertaining that the same had been passed to the accused by way of bribe, Ved Prakash was further instructed to give the agreed signal."

7. The Inspector and the party with the complainant were in the area of the Novelty Cinema from about 2.10 P.M., the accused was not to be seen in the area till 5.45 P. M. when, however, he was located in plain clothes in a three-wheeler scooter sitting in the rear seat with Babu Ram (PW 6) a constable of the Lahori Gate Police Station on duty, in uniform.

8. In addition to the complainant, Sohan Singh (PW 3) stated that "..... somebody came and called the complainant. He took him along with him". This has to be particul