JAGANMOHAN REDDY, J.

( 1 ) THE accused has been charged for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5 (I) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947) (herein after called the Act ). The Special Judge did not record any finding under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code but convicted the accused under Section 5 (I) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Act with the aid of the presumption under Section 4 (I) of the Act and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/-

( 2 ) THE Appellant is an Assistant Draughtsman in the Southern Railway in the office of Executive Engineer, Guntakal. P. W. 1, C. V. Naidu, had obtained a contract from the Southern Railway for construction of a platform in Gooty, of the value of rupees three lakhs. The accused, who was deputed in the first week of February 1961, supervised the construction work from 10-4-1961 to 29-4-1961. He was relieved on 6-5-1961 he was working at Guntakal from 9-5-1961. It is admitted in evidence that between 9-2-1961 and 9-4-1961 he was supervising other works. It is the case of the prosecution that this accused along with one K. A. Viswanathan, Assistant Inspector of Works, and one E. O. Mollan, Permanent Way Inspector were harassing P. W. 1, giving him a lot of trouble in his work, and demanding bribes. P. W. 1 having come to know that the Inspector of Police. Special Police Establishment, Hyderabad (P. W. 7) came to Gooty and was staying in the inspection bungalow, went to him on 16-5-1961 and complained about the demands made by this accused and others and gave a written complaint (Ex. P. I ). P. W. 7 is alleged to have asked P. W. I whether he was prepared to give a bribe, and when P. W. I said that he was so prepared, P. W. 7 asked P. W. to meet him at 3 A. M. on 17-5-1961.

( 3 ) THE accused seems to have met P. W. 1 on 16-5-1961 at 7. 30 P. M. on platform after he returned from Guntakal and demanded Rs. 100/- towards bribe. P. W. 1 agreed to pay it, and the accused said that he would visit P. W. 1s house at 6 A. M. 17-5-1961. According to P. W. 1, Viswanathan, the appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 744 of 196 2, also met him earlier on the same day. He (P. W. 1 ) told Viswanathan that he would pay him the amount the next morning. Viswanathan said that he would come to P. W. 1s house at 5-30 A. M. on 17-5-1961.

( 4 ) AFTER this, P. W. 1 met P. W. 7 at 9 P. M. that day (16-5-1961) and told him about the demands of the accused, Viswanathan and Mollan. It was then that P. W. 7 asked P. W. 1 to meet him at 3 A. M. at the travellers bungalow. On 17-5-1961 at about 3 A. M. P. M. 1 again went to the travellers bungalow with four hundred-rupee currency notes, and there he met besides P. W. 7, two others, P. W. 4 a Telephone Supervisor. P. W. 2 a partner of P. W. 3 an Agricultural Demonstrator and P. W. 4 a Telephone Supervisor. P. W. 2 a partner of P. W. 1 is said to have accompanied him. P. W. 7 then took the currency notes from P. W. 1 and explained how the trap works. P. W. 7 dusted the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder. He brought a glass tumbler of water and mixed soda-bicarbonate producing a solution which is colourless. P. W. 7 then touched the dusted currency notes, and his hand immersing it in that solution. The solution then turned into pink colour. P. W. 1 then understood the significance of the test. P. W. 2 and P. W. 1 were searched by P. W. 7 and he made sure that they had no money. The currency notes dusted with phenolphthalein were returned to P. W. 1 by P. W. 7 with a direction that he should pay one hundred rupee currency notes to the accused, one hundred-rupee currency notes to Viswanathan and two hundred-rupee currency notes to Mollan. P. W. 2 was asked to accompany P. W. 1 to his house and see what transpires between P. W. 1 to his house and see what transpires between the accused, Viswanathan and P. W. 1. In case the accused and Viswanathan demanded and accepted

Click Here to Read the rest of this document