C.A. VAIDIALINGAM, J.

(1) -IN this appeal by special leave, on behalf of the first accused) the judgment, dated 3/08/1968 of the Bombay High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1749 of 1966 confirming the appellants conviction and sentence, is challenged. The appellant, at the relevant time was the Sub-Registrar at Kannad. The appellant along with two others namely, the clerk, accused No. 2, and the peon, accused No. 3, were tried by the Special Judge, Aurangabad and convicted or the offences under S. 161 read with S. 34 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(l)(d) read with S. 5(2) of the Prevention of Courruption Act, 1947. The appellant was sentenced to 18 months, rigorous imprison- ment and a fine of Rs.500.00. Indefault of payment of fine he was senten- ced to undergo six months rigorous imprisonment. Accused No. 2 was sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 250.00. Similarly in default of payment of fine he was sentenced to undergo three months rigorous imprisonment. Accused No. 3 was sentenced to nine months rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 50.00 and in default was to undergo one months rigorous imprisonment.

(2) THE prosecution case in brief was as follows : One Shaikh Amin, who was the owner of Survey No. 35 had contracted to sell some time in 1962, 10 acres from and out of that survey number to Keshav for and on behalf of his joint family for a price of Rs.3,000.00. One Atyaji had four brothers and Ramrao was one of them. Bhikan, complainant (P. W. 2) was the son of Atyaji and Keshav was the son of Ramrao. All of them were members of a joint family. The sale could not be finalised immedia- tely because of the requirement of permission being given by the Collector under the Bombay Tenancy Act for effecting sales of lands. Later on the Act was amended and the Collectors permission was no longer necessary. The parties decided to complete the transaction; and accordingly on 8/02/1966, Bhikarn purchased the requisite stamp paper for the sale deed. The sale deed Ex. 20, is finalised, and engrossed on the stamp paper was prepared by the document writer Devidas (P. W. 3) on 9/02/1966. After the sale deed was executed by Shaikh Amin, it was taken to the Sub-Registrars Office at Kannad on 9/02/1966 at about 3 or 3.30 p. m. by Bhikham. He was accompained by Keshav, Atyaji, the scribe Devidas, Ramdas, the vendor Shaikh Amin and one Punjiaji. Keshav presented the sale deed Ex. 20 to the appellant for regis- tration and inquired about the registration charges to be paid by him. The appellant is stated to have replied that the registration charges would be about Rs. 30.00. The appellant is further alleged to have stated that unless the parties pay an additional sum of Rs. 30.00 the document will not be accepted for registration. As Bhikan and Keshav did not have with them a sum of Rs. 60.00 and as they further did not desire to pay any amount over and above registration charges, they came out of the Sub- Registrars office. At that time accused No. 2, who was the clerk, working under the appellant, followed them and is stated to have asked them to bring the sum of Rs. 60.00 as demanded by the Sub-Registrar and that if the amount is not brought, the registration of the document could not be done.

(3) P. W. 2 Bhikan approached the Anti-Corruption Police on Febru- ary 10, 1966 at Aurangabad and made a complaint Ex. 32 to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Sri Aimen (P. W. 6). P. W. 6 applied anthra- cene powder on the six currency notes of Rs. 10.00 each, brought by Bhikan and returned those notes to the latter with instruction to pay the same to the appellant when the demand for money was again made by him. P. W. 2 was also instructed to give the suitable signal as soon as the money was paid, P. W. 2 accompained by the police party and the panchas came to the Sub-Registrars office the same evening, but as the said office had by then closed, they went away. The next day, that is, on