ORDER :- The applicant under Sections 161 and 116 has been convicted I.P.C. by the courts below and sentenced to a fine of Rs. 100/-. He has been found guilty of having offered a bribe to the Assistant Superintendent Watch and Ward Department. There is no dispute about the facts which have been proved beyond any doubt.

The applicant challenges his conviction on some legal grounds. One is that he was not informed by the trying Magistrate that he had right to examine himself in defence. It has been held by a Full Bench of this Court - Raja Ram v. State, AIR 1955 All 204 (A), only a couple of days ago that a court is not bound to inform an accused, who is being prosecuted under the Prevention of Corruption Act, that he had a right to examine himself in defence and that his conviction cannot be quashed merely on account of the courts refusal or failure to inform him of the right.

The occurrence took place on 4-11-49. The police investigated the case and finding it proved requested the Superintendent, Watch and Ward, to sanction the prosecution of the applicant. On 20-8-1950 the Superintendent, Watch and Ward, sanctioned the prosecution. Then the police sent up the applicant for trial. Th

Click Here to Read the rest of this document