B.P.SINHA, C.J.I.

(1) THIS appeal was first heard by a division bench of three judges, composed of the chief justice, Imam and Shah, JJ., on the 19th of February last year. In the course of the argument, the learned counsel for the appellant invited the attention of the court to the decision of a division bench of this court in the State of Ajmer v. Shivji Lal (1). The bench hearing the case, being of opinion that the decision aforesaid of this Court required reconsideration, referred the case to a larger bench, and that is how it has come before us.

(2) IT is necessary to state the following facts in order to bring out the question of law to be determined in this case. The appellant was an upper Division Clerk in the office of the Chief Commissioner of Delhi. He had come to know Ram Narain, who is the chief prosecution witness in this case and who is a fireman serving in Delhi Fire Brigade. Ram Narain, aforesaid, had for a long time been anxious to Obtain a licence for a double-barrelled shotgun. It is alleged that in this connection he bad sought the assistance of the appellant who had nothing to do with the issuing of licences for firearms, which is done by the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Delhi. The prosecution story, which, as indicated above, rests mainly on the statement of Ram Narain, is that he had submitted two applications during the year 1953 for the purpose of obtaining the licence aforesaid, with the assistance of the appellant. These applications did not produce any results. In 1954, he made another attempt in the same direction and approached the appellant to help him. The appellant held out hopes of success in obtaining the licence if he was paid Rs. 250.00. Ram Narain paid only Rs. 140.00 and held out a promise to pay the amount after his sisters marriage. Thus, the third application for the licence was made in which Rain Narains salary was declared to be Rs. 105.00 per month. This third attempt proved successful and Ram Narain was granted the necessary licence. Before the learned single Judge of the High court in Delhi, before whom the case came up on appeal, it was not disputed that the appellant had used his good offices in expediting and furthering the progress of the application in the appropriate department. It appears that eventually the authorities concerned were appraised of the fact that the salary of Ram Narain was only Rs. 85.00 per month and that the declaration in the form that his salary was Rs. 105.00 per month bad been falsely made with a view to get over the difficulty that applications for licences for firearms by government servants drawing less than Rs. 100.00 per month would not ordinarily be considered. When the authorities came to know the true facts about Ram Narains status in government service. his licence was cancelled and he was called upon to show cause why he should not be prosecuted for having made a false statement. Ram Narain made his representation to the authorities and showed cause against the action proposed to be taken against him, alleging that his monthly salary had been falsely declared in the relevant form for application for the firearm on the advice of the appellant. The prosecution story further is that when Ram Narain got into the trouble, as aforesaid, about the false statement in his application form, he again approached the appellant. The appellant demanded another Rs. 180.00 as a reward for his getting the licence restored. Ultimately, Ram Narain agreed to pay the appellant Rs. 90.00 in advance and promised to pay the remaining Rs. 90.00 after the licence had actually been restored to him. Ram Narain for reasons of his own, appeared to have approached his superior officers and thus the matter reached the Chief Fire Officer, who appraised the police of the proposed illegal transaction between Ram Narain and the appellant. The police decided to lay a trap for catching the appellant red-handed. Accordingly, Ram Narain saw the appellant in the