JUDGMENT

KAILASAM, J. :— This appeal is by special leave by the appellant against the judgment of the Gujarat High Court in Crl. A. No. 837/73. D/- 12th December, 1974 reversing the order of acquittal of the trial court and finding the appellant guilty of offences under Section 161 I. P. C. and Section 5 (1) (d) read with Sec. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and sentencing him to three months rigorous imprisonment.

2. The appellant is a Bench Clerk in the Court of the City Magistrate, 3rd Court, Ahmedabad. The charge against him is that on 7-7-72 he accepted from one Natvarlal Govindlal Patel a sum of Rs. 2/- as illegal gratification for the favour of granting an adjourment to 18-7-72 in Crl. Case No. 497-72 and for accepting another sum of Rs. 2/- on 18-7-72 from Natvarlal Govindlal Patel for showing favour in granting a date for the next hearing.

3. The prosecution case in brief is that the complainant Natvarlal Govindlal Patel was accused in the Court in about four cases before the City Magistrate. Out of these four cases, three cases were committed to the Court of Session and the trial was pending against Natvarlal Govindlal Patel. In the fourth case Natvarlal Govindlal Patel was convicted of an offence under Section 420, IPC and sentenced to imprisonment for 9 months and to a fine of of Rs. 1,000/-. An appeal against conviction and sentence by Natvarlal Govindlal Patel also failed. Natvarlal Govindlal Patel stated that on several occasions, he paid the appellant a sum of Rs. 2/-.

4. It is alleged that on 7-7-72 Natvarlal paid a sum of Rs. 2/- to the accused for getting the case adjourned to 18-7-72. Apart from the fact that the evidence of Natvarlal is not corroborated, the trial court found that on his own showing the case was adjourned to 18-7-72 on 4-7-72 and there was no need for any request by the complainant on 7-7-72 for posting it on 18-7-72. The trial court observed, "there is absolutely no reason for him to go to the Bench Clerk on that date i. e. 7-7-72 because he knew that next date was 18-7-72 ". He was not required to go to court on 7-7-72. The High Court accepted finding of the trial court that the evidence of the complainant that he paid Rs. 2/- to the accused on 7-7-72 cannot be accepted.

5. The only charge that is left against the accused is that he accepted a sum of Rs. 2/- on 18-7-72. Though the accused demanded a sum of Rs. 2/- on 7-7-72 itself, the complainant went to the police only on 17-7-72 after an interval of 10 days and complained about the demand of bribe by the accused. The usual trap was set up and two marked notes dipped in anthracene power were handed over to the complainant for being given to the accused on demand. The case of the complainant is that he went to the court hall on the firsts floor where the ac cused was seated and asked for a date and when the accused demanded Rupees 2/- he gave it to him. The evidence is said to be corroborated by Panch witness Kirti Kumar Ext. 10. After the pre-arranged signal was given by the complainant the police officer and others came in. Regarding the recovery of Rupees 2/- the evidence is that after the money was paid by the complainant to accused, the police caught hold of the hands of the accused. Nothing was done for about 20 minutes. Later the accused was taken to the adjoining room and when the Sheristedar had gone to the Chief City Magistrate to inform him about the incident the search and the recovery was effected. The search was concluded within 15 minutes. The trial court was of the view that the entire story about the complainants giving Rs. 2/- and its recovery is highly artificial and evidence of the Panch witness Kirti Kumar is unacceptable. The trial court pointed out that in the court room there were several independent persons present when the offer of the bribe was made and accepted. Curiously even after the police came the money was not recovered immediately from the accused. The accused was taken into a room and aft