This is an appeal by one Mohiddin, who was a train movement Inspector in the M. &38; S.M. Railway and had jurisdiction over all stations between Guntakkal and Bezwada and Mecherla, against his conviction, under section 161, Indian Penal Code, by the Sessions Judge, Guntur, for having received Rs. 30. mamool or bribe, from P.W. 7, the Station Master, Perecherla, for showing favour to him and not sending reports against him and bringing into trouble, and the sentence of six months’ rigorous imprisonment. He had been charged also with the offence of criminal misconduct "in the discharge of his duty by habitually accepting or obtaining or attempting to obtain illegal gratifications like that from P.W. 1, Chelapathi Naidu, while he was Station Master at Bethamcherla, for showing favour by not sending reports against him, and of bargaining to obtain a bribe of Rs. 200 from. P.W. 3 for enabling him to transport green chillies illegally and actually securing a part-payment of Rs. 50 out of that bribe, an offence punishable under section 5(2) of Central Act II of 1947. The learned Sessions Judge found that the evidence regarding the alleged offence under section 5(2) of Central Act II of 1947 was false or unreliable and acquitted him of that offence, while convicting him of the offence under section 161, Indian Penal Code, in appeal here.

I have perused the entire records, and heard Mr. K.S. Jayarama Iyer, the learned counsel for the appellant, and the learned Public Prosecutor contra. The facts are briefly these.

The appellant, as train movement Inspector, had the duty of checking train detentions, movement of luggage, including unauthorised luggage, and delays in loading and unloading of goods, and sending reports against railway officials regarding all these and suspected acts of misconduct. The reports sent by him would be inquired into by the authorities concerned and suitable punishment awarded to Station Masters, etc. The prosecution alleged that, taking advantage of the power given to him by virtue of his post and underlining his power by sending reports against the Station Masters, etc., and showing what he could do, the appellant was asking the Station Masters to pay bribes, which he called mamools, to him every month. He asked P.W. 7 to pay him a bribe or mamool of Rs. 15 a month two or three months after he joined duty as Station Master at Perecherla in October, 1948, in the same way as his predecessor was paying, so that he might cover up all irregularities and derelictions of duty and not send reports against him and bring him to trouble. P.W. 7 said that he was a man with a large family and with onerous liabilities, and could not afford to pay the bribe demanded.

The appellant used to pass Perecherla station often and every time he passed he used to ask P.W. 7 for the mamool bribe. P.W. 7 went on refusing. After two or three months, finding that P.W. 7 could not be induced to pay anything like Rs. 15 per month, the appellant climbed down and said that it would be enough if P.W. 7 would pay a bribe of Rs. 5 per month. Meanwhile, the appellant had also sent a report against P.W. 7 for sending ghee as luggage, against the rules, and P.W. 7 had been warned by the authorities for the irregularity. P.W. 7, therefore agreed to pay the lesser bribe demanded then. He said in Court that he agreed unwillingly and that he sent a petition about the appellants’ demand for the bribe to the Anti-Corruption Branch, but the officer in charge of that branch stated that no such petition was received by him. Any way, P.W. 7, showed no eagerness to pay Rs. 5 every month, in spite of repeated demands by the appellant. Finally, in the middle of September, 1949, P.W. 7 took leave for a week in order to attend to his wife’s delivery at Guntur. Then, of course, the appellant saw that no time should be lost, and asked that at least Rs. 30, that is six months’ mamool at Rs. 5 per month, should be paid to him, and P. W. 7 promised to, pay it a