Judgment

DUA, J.:- The appellant in this appeal by special leave challenges the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Delhi dated October 29, 1969 upholding, on appeal, the appellant s conviction under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 and under Section 161, I.P.C. The Special Judge convicting the appellant by his order dated May 24, 1967 had imposed a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for 11/4 years and also imposed a fine of Rs. 200/- with three months further imprisonment in case of default of payment of fine under Section 5 (2) read with Section 5 (l) (d] of the Prevention of Corruption Act, a similar substantive sentence of imprisonment was imposed under Section 161 I.P.C. Both the substantive sentences were to run concurrently. The High Court on appeal reduced the substantive sentence of imprisonment under both counts to rigorous imprisonment for one year each. The sentence of fine and imprisonment in default of payment of fine was maintained.

2. Shri R. L. Kohli. the learned counsel for the appellant has addressed elaborate arguments in support of this appeal and has severely criticised the judgments and orders of both the courts below. Before considering the grounds of challenge, we may appropriately refer to the broad features of the prosecution story .

3. One Madan Singh, who has appeared as P.W, 3 at the trial Court, was holding contract for supply of vegetables to the Seva Kendra run by Delhi Administration for the benefit of beggars. The Store-keeper of the Kendra, B. G. Goswami (appellant) is said to have told the contractor that if the latter paid bribe to him, then all sorts of vegetables supplied by him would be acceptable, but in case he did not do so, no vegetable brought by him would be received. Madan Singh brought this demand to the notice of Shri Har Narain Singh, P.W. 10, D.S.P. Anti-Corruption Police on 7-1-1966, The D.S.P. thereupon organised a raiding party consisting of Shri Kewal Ram (P.W, l ) and Shri Ram Rikh (P.W, 5), two officials of the Sales Tax Department and some policemen. Madan Singh produced five currency notes of Rs. 10/- each and the witnesses are stated to have seen their numbers. The D.S.P. duly recorded those numbers in his proceedings. Madan Singh is then said to have paid the five currency notes to the appellant at Kiran Restaurant and the D. S. P. is stated to have recovered them from the right side pocket of the appellant s coat immediately thereafter.

4. The trial Court after considering the evidence led in the case, accepted the prosecution story in essential particulars and relying on the presumption embodied in Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act convicted the appellant as already noticed.

5. In the High Court the learned single Judge also felt that the prosecution case was fully supported by the evidence of the complainant P.W. 3 and the two independent witnesses, Kewal Ram (P.W. 1) and Ram Rikh (P.W. 5). The High Court noticed the fact that Kewal Ram end Ram Rikh who had been directed by the D. S. P. to hear the conversation between the complainant and the appellant were not able to hear distinctly such conversation as the radio in the Restaurant was being played at a very high pitch, but as both of them had deposed to have themselves seen with their own eyes the currency notes being given by the complainant to the appellant and the same were recovered by the D. S. P. from the same pocket of the appellant s coat in which the currency notes had been put by him after acceptance, their failure to distinctly hear the conversation was held to be immaterial. The High Court also referred to the presumption embodied in Section 4 (1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and observed that this presumption would apply only if it was established that the appellant had actually accepted the currency notes. If, however, the prosecution evidence falls short of what is required to prove the fact of acc