9911796707
TMI Blog1976 (5) TMI 106X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... dealing with this case from July 1968 raised objections on the ground of some defects or other. According to the prosecution what happened is as follows. The complainant met the appellant in his office on January 29, 1969 and requested him to get his application passed. The complainant was a tailor by profession. The appellant visited the complainant's shop on the following day and in the presence of the complainant's employee Mangal Ram told the complainant that he would see his application through if the complainant paid him ₹ 100/-. The complainant having ultimately agreed to pay, the appellant made over a draft application instructing the complainant to file a typed copy of the same in his office. The appellant took ͅ ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... e raiding party and who had been given four cloth pieces before the arrival of the accused, came into the shop at the time posing as a customer. The rest of the raiding party were waiting at a tea stall opposite the shop. On the arrival of the accused, complainant's employee Mangal Ram (P.W. 7) came out of the shop as if to fetch some coca cola but really to signal the arrival of the appellant. The appellant demanded money from the complainant in the presence of PW. 3 D.C. Chaudhry assuring the complainant that the work would be done before Holi. The complainant then took out the currency notes from his pocket, retained one of them, and requested the appellant to accept ₹ 70/- saying that he had been able to collect the money by p ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... tted an offence punishable under Section 161 I.P.C. and within my cognisance. SECONDLY, that you being a public servant in the office of the Land Development Officer, New Delhi, namely, working as a dealing U.D.C., Property III Section by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing your position as a public servant, obtained a pecuniary advantage of ₹ 20/- from Shri Hari Chand, attorney of Shri N.C.L khanpal, owner of property No. 6/38-A. Vijay Nagar for expediting the issue of sale permission for the said property as part payment of ₹ 100/- which you had demanded and illegal gratification from the said Shri Hari Chand and agreed to accept the balance of ₹ 80/-on 26.2.69 as a motive or reward for the issue of sal ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... he prosecution examined 8 witnesses to prove the case against the appellant as appearing from the four charges framed against him Complainant, examined as P.W. 1, said that he bad paid to the appellant ₹ 20/- on January 28, 1969 and ₹ 0/- on February 26, 1969 and described how the sum of ₹ 70/-was recovered from the appellant. Examined under Section 342 of the Cede of Criminal Procedure, the appellant admitted that he had given a draft application in manuscript to the complainant, photostat copy of which is Ex P.W. 1/A, but denied that he asked the complainant to return the same or that the complainant did in fact return it to him. He denied that the complainant met him in his office on January 29, 1969 when he demanded fr ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... onment for one year under each count and also fined ₹ 100/- for each of the offences under Section 5(1)(d) and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act; in default of payment he was further sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one month. The substantive sentences were to run concurrently. 3. The High Court on appeal preferred by the appellant before us did not accept the prosecution case on the first two charges on the ground that it would be unsafe to hold on the bare testimony of the complainant that ₹ 20/- had been paid to the appellant as alleged. Apparently, the High Court looked upon the complainant as a witness not to be believed unless his evidence was corroborated by other evidence. The High Court however a ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X ..... ourt had accepted. If the High Court did not find it possible to accept a vital part of the story, it is difficult to see how the other part, which did not stand by itself, could be accepted. It was not the prosecution case that ₹ 70/- which was recovered from the appellant was the amount that the appellant has asked from the complainant. This was a new case made by the High Court. Undoubtedly there are circumstances in this case which are highly suspicious against the appellant, but the High Court having disbelieved an essential part of the prosecution case an which the other part was dependant, we do not consider it safe to sustain the conviction of the appellant. Accordingly, we allow the appeal and set aside the order of convictio ..... X X X X Extracts X X X X X X X X Extracts X X X X
|
