JUDGMENT

GUPTA, J.:—In January, 1969 the appellant Hari Dev Sharma was working as an Upper Division Clerk in the Land and Development Office, New Delhi. Admittedly, the appellant used to deal with applications relating to sale of properties which could be finalised only on permission being granted by the Land and Development Officer. Complainant Hari Chand had made several applications for such permission in connection with a property purchased by his wife in the year 1964. It appears that the appellant who started dealing with this case from July 1968 raised objections on the ground of some defect or other. According to the prosecution what happened is as follows. The complainant met the appellant in his office on January 29, 1969 and requested him to get his application passed. The complainant was a tailor by profession. The appellant visited the complainant shop on the following day and in the presence of the complainant s employee Mangal Ram told the complainant that he would see his application through if the complainant paid him Rs.100/-. The complainant having ultimately agreed to pay, the appellant made over a draft application instructing the complainant to file a typed copy of the same in his office. The appellant took Rs. 20/- from the complainant and it was agreed that the balance of Rs. 80/- would be paid after the permission was granted. The complainant had the draft given to him by the appellant photographed before returning the manuscript to the appellant on January 31, 1969. The complainant saw the appellant in his office several times in February, 1969 and he was assured that the matter would be finalised very soon. On then day of his last visit on Feb. 24, the appellant told the complainant that he would see him in the latter s shop the next day for the balance of Rs. 80/-. Next day, when the appellant saw the complainant in his shop, the latter was first unwilling to pay. On being warned by the appellant that this would mean rejection of his application for permission, the complainant asked him co come the following day for the balance. The complainant then went to the Office of Special Police Establishment, Kotah House, and made a statement before Inspector B. K. Shukla who recorded the, same. Eight currency notes of Rs.10/-, each belonging to the complainant, were treated with Phenol Phathelene powder and handed back to the complainant with a direction to pass these on to the appellant on his demand. A raiding party headed by Inspector Shukla and including the 1490 complainant, two panch witnesses and some police officials reached the complainant s shop at about 4 P.M. The appellant reached the shop at about 5.45 P.M. One D. C. Chaudhry (P.W.3), who was among the raiding party and who had been given four cloth pieces before the arrival of the accused, came into the shop at the time posing as a customer. The rest of the raiding party were waiting at a tea stall opposite the shop. On the arrival of the accused, complainant s employee Mangal Ram (P.W.7) came out of the shop as if to fetch some Coca Cola but really to signal the arrival of the appellant. The appellant demanded money from the complainant in the presence of P.W. 3 D. C. Chaudhry assuring the complainant that the work would be done before Holi. The complainant then took out the currency notes from his pocket, retained one of them, and requested the appellant to accept Rs.70/- saying that he had been able to collect the money by pawning his golden ring. As the appellant was counting the notes, the complainant gave a signal upon which Inspector Shukla arrived at the spot and caught hold of the appellant. The currency notes fell down on the floor in the scuffle between the appellant and Inspector Shukla. The appellant also attempted to remove the powder that stuck to his fingers from the currency notes by licking the fingers and rubbing them on the matting on the floor. He was made to dip his hands in two glass tumblers containing solution of Sodiu