CHAKRAVARTTI, C. J.

( 1 ) WE are of opinion that this is a case where we ought to grant leave to appeal under Article 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution.

( 2 ) THE application is against an order of a Division Bench of this Court, dated 1-12-1954, by which the conviction of the petitioner under Section 161, Penal Code as also under Section 5 (2), read with Section 5 (1) (d) of Act 2 of 1947, by a Special Judge was upheld.

( 3 ) BRIEFLY stated, the prosecution case was that one Doraiswami, who had himself been a Railway Officer at one time, set up after his retirement something like a business of acting on behalf of persons lodging claims with the Railway. That profession or vocation brought him into contact with the petitioner who was an Assistant Supervisor of the Bengal Nagpur Railway and whose duty it was to deal with claims. It was alleged that on various occasions the petitioner accepted illegal gratification from Doraiswami as a consideration for showing him favour in respect of the claim cases in which Doraiswami was interested. The sums were small, such as Rs. 10/- on one occasion and Rs. 15/- on another, but they were, nevertheless, illegal gratification. After these deali

Click Here to Read the rest of this document