A.N.RAY, J.

(1) THIS is an appeal by cetificate from the judgement, dared October 8 and 9, 1969, of the High court at Bombay convicting the appellant under Sectioni 161 and 385 of the Indian penal Code. The High court confirmed the substantive sentence to simple imprisomment for six months under Section. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and simple imprisonment for three months under S. 385 of the Indian Penal Code. In addition, the high court imposed on the appellant a fine of Rs. 10,000.00 and in default of payment of fine, further simple imprisoment for six months.

(2) THE appeliant was at the curcial time the coroner of bombay The prosecution case was as follows Jagdish prasad Ramnarayan Khandwal was admited to the nursing home of a Gynaecologist Dr. Adatia on 3/05/1964 Dr. Adatia diagnosed the caes as acute appendicitis. Dr. Aditya kept the patient under the observation. After 24 hires the condition of the patient became serious. Dr. Shantilal J. Mehta was called his diagnosis was acute appendiate operation . Dr. Aditya performed the operation . The appendix, according to Dr. Aditya had become gangrenous. The patient developed paralysis to the ileum he was removed to bombay hospital on 10/05/1964. under the treatment of Dr. Motwani. The patient die on 13/05/1964. The hospital issued a death intimation Card as "paralytic ileus and peritonitis following an opreation for acute appendicitis"

(3) THE appelant allowed The dispusal of the dead body without ordering post-morterm there was howere a request for an mquest from the police station. The cause for the inquest was that this was a case of most operation death in & hospital. The Coroners court registered the inquest on 13/05/1964 the dates for inqest. were in the months of July. september and october 1964 The appellant was on leave for some time in the months of June and July, 1964. This is said to delay the inqust

(4) IT was the practice of the Coroners court to send letters to professional. people concered in inquest to get the esplanation of theDoctor who trated or operated upon the patient. The appellant. on Octoiber 3, 1964 made an order that Dr. Adatia be called. It is alleged that the appellant had told Dr. Adatia a few days earlier that though he might have opearted satisfactorlly the cause of death given by the hospitai would give rise. to a presumption of negligence on his part. Dr.Adatia was asked by the neppellant to meet Dr. Motwani, so that the latter could get in tonch with the appellent to resolve the technical difficulties. Dr. Motwani met the appellant: on 3/10/1964. The appellant told Dr. Motwani that Dr. Adatia was at fault but he might be cleared of the charge in the inquest. The appellant asked for a sum of Rs. 20,000.00. Dr. Motwani said that he would consult Dr. Adatia. Dr. Motwani conveyed the proposal to Dr. Adatia. The latter refused to pay any illegal gratification. Dr. Motwani intimated the same to the appellant. The appedant then reduced the demand to Rs. 10,000.00. Dr. Adatia also refused to pay the same.

(5) ON October 4, the appellant got in touch with Dr. Jadhav Superintendent of the Bombay Hospital to find out if the cause of death given in the Hospital Card could be Dr. Motwani told Dr. Jadhav on the same day that mcorrect cause of death was shown and great injustice was done to Dr. Adatia Dr. Jadhav said that he would an amend deposition to the Coroner, the appellant.

(6) ON 5/10/1964. Dr. Motwani and Dr. Adatia decided to lodge a complaint with the Anti Curruption Bureau. Dr. Adatias Nursing home got messages on the telephone to get in touch with the appellant. Dr. Adatia complained to Dr. Motwani of the harassment on the telephone. Dr. Motwani rang up the appellant. The appellant asked Dr. Motwani to by 10 a.m. on October 7 whether-Dr. Adatia was willing to pay Rs. 10,000.00. Dr. Motwani rang up Mugwe, Director of the Anti Corruption Branch, and complained that a higher government