TRILOK CHAND JAIN Vs. STATE OF DELHI

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave is directed against a judgment of the High Court of Delhi upholding the conviction of the appellant under Section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161, Penal Code, recorded by the Special Judge, Delhi. The facts of the prosecution case are as follows:

(2.) On June 21, 1968, at about 10.15 a.m. Gupta came to the factory, along with his gang of labourers and started the installation work. Gupta informed the complainant that he would return to the factory either personally or send somebody else to collect the amount of Rs. 100/- at about 2. p.m. The complainant passed on this information also, to the D. S. P. Thereafter the D. S. P. along with the aforesaid witnesses and others came to the complainant at about 11.30 a.m. and settled the details of the trap. The complainant produced one currency note of denomination of Rs. 100/-. The D. S. P. noted its No. and returned it to the complainant with the direction that he should pay it to Gupta. Gupta however did not turn up at 2 p.m. Instead, the appellant, a permanent labourer working under Gupta, came to the factory and told the complainant that he had been send by Inspector Gupta and that the money be given to him. The complainant said that the appellant should sent Gupta to receive the money. The appellant reiterated that he had been deputed by Gupta to collect the money and the same be given to him. Thereupon the complainant handed over the currency note of Rs. 100/- (Ex. P-1) to the appellant in the immediate presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3. The appellant put the note in the pocket of his pants. On receiving the agreed signal, the D. S. P. and his companions rushed in and recovered the currency note (Ex. P-1) from the person of the appellant. The D. S. P. then sent a report to the Police Station on the basis of which a case was registered. The appellant was arrested. Subsequently, on 22-6-1968, Gupta was also arrested. After obtaining the necessary sanction, the appellant and Gupta both were sent up for trial before the Special Judge, Delhi who acquitted Gupta but convicted the appellant and sentenced him to one year's rigorous imprisonment.

(3.) Examined under Sec.342, Cr. P. C. the appellant admitted that at the material time he was a permanent labourer (Mazdoor) of the D. E. S. U. working in Shahdara Zone. He gave this account of the circumstances in which he had received the currency note (Ex. P1) from the complainant: