Judgement

VAIDIALINGAM, J.: - This appeal by special leave, is directed against the judgment and order dated September 18, 1967 of the Delhi High Court confirming the conviction of the appellant for offences under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act,1947 (hereinafter to be referred as the Act) and Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code. The High Court also confirmed the sentence of one year s rigorous imprisonment. In addition to this the Special Judge had imposed a fine of Rs. 500/.; but the High Court reduced the fine to Rs. 100/-. This was the only modification effected by the High Court with regard to the sentence.

2. The case for the prosecution was as follows: The appellant was employed in August, 1965 as Head Constable attached to Hauz Qazi Police Station, Delhi. One Som Nath used to park his rehri in the chowk of Hauz Qazi and sell Kulchey and Chholey. Som Nath had been plying this trade for about 8 or 10 years without payment of the necessary tax to the Municipal Corporation and without taking any licence. The appellant used to harass and threaten Som Nath that unless he paid bribe to him, he will be prosecuted. In particular on August 25, 1965 the appellant demanded from Som Nath as bribe a sum of Rs. 20/- per month for not harassing him for carrying on his business without the necessary licence. Som Nath expressed his inability to pay such a heavy amount and ultimately the appellant agreed to receive Rs. 10 permonth. He promised to make the first payment on August 26, 1965 between 2 and 3 P. M. At about 11 A. M. on August 26, 1965, Som Nath approached Sri Harnaik Singh, Deputy Superintendent of Police, attached to the Anti Corruption Department and reported about the demand made by the appellant and to his having ultimately agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 10/- between 2 and 3 P. M. on that day. This complaint was reduced to writing by Harnaik Singh, who has given evidence as P. W. 6. P.W. 6, summoned two employees from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, Tees Haziad. Sri Navneet Lal (P. W. 2) and Hari Kishan (P. W. 3) and in their presence took from P. W. 1 the currency note of Rs. 10/- and after noting the number handed it over to P. W. 1 with the instruction to give the same to the appellant on demand. P. W. 1 was also informed that the police party will be hiding nearby and that he should give a particular signal after paying the amount to the appellant.

3. The police party headed by P. W. 6 together with the complainant and P. Ws. 2 and 3 proceeded near the rehri of P. W, 1 while P. W. 1 went to the rehri, the police party and P. Ws. 2 and 3 remained behind in hiding. At about 2.45 P. M. the appellant came to the rehri of P. W. 1 and told him "give my thing to me." P. W. 1 placed the currency note on the palm of the appellant saying that he was making the payment with considerable difficulty. On signal given by P. W. 1, the Deputy Superintendent of Police along with others immediately went to the rehri of P. W. 1 and on being told by P. W. 1 that he has paid Rs. 10/to the appellant, the latter was asked to produce the same. P. W. 6 made a search of the appellant and recovered the currency note Ex. P. 1 from his pocket. The number of the currency note was checked with the number already recovered and it tallied. P. Ws. 2 and 3 also witnessed the search and seizure made by P. W. 6. Accordingly the appellant was prosecuted for the offences mentioned above.

4. The prosecution relied mainly on the evidence of P. W. 1 Som Nath and the two persons who had witnessed the search and seizure P. Ws. 2 and 3 and the Deputy Superintendent of Police, P. W. 6. Certain other witnesses were also examined.

5. The appellant denied that he had either demanded or received any bribe from P. W. 1. He pleaded that the alleged recovery of the currency note from him is false and that the witnesses had been tutored to give false evidence at the instance of Ved Prakash, Sub-Inspector of Police, who was his e