C I EMDEN Vs. STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal by special leave has been filed by C. I. Emden hereinafter called the appellant) who has been convicted under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and under S. 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 2 of 1947 (hereinafter called the Act). The case against him was that he had accepted a bribe of Rs. 375 from Sarat Chandra Shukla on January 8, 1953. The appellant was a Loco Foreman at Alambagh Loco Shed, and Shukla had secured a contract at the same place for the removal of cinders from ash pits and for loading coal. This contract had been given to Shukla in June 1952. The prosecution case was that the appellant demanded from Shukla Rs. 400 per month in order that Shukla may be allowed to carry out his contract peacefully without any harassment. Shukla was told by the appellant that he had been receiving a monthly payment from Ram Ratan who had held a similar contract before him and that it would be to his interest to agree to pay the bribe. Shukla, however, refused to accede to this request and that led to many hostile acts on the part of the appellant. On January 3, 1953, the appellant again asked Shukla to pay him the monthly bribe as already suggested; Shukla then requested him to reduce the demand on the ground that the contract given to him was for a much lesser amount than that which had been given to his predecessor Ram Ratan; the appellant thereupon agreed to accept Rs. 375. Shukla had no money at the time and so he asked for time to make the necessary arrangement. The agreement then was that Shukla would pay the money to the appellant on January 8, 1953. Meanwhile Shukla approached the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Corruption Branch, and gave him information about the illegal demand made by the appellant. Shukla's statement was then recorded before a magistrate and it was decided to lay a trap. Accordingly a party consisting of Shukla, the magistrate, the Deputy Superintendent of Police and some other persons went to the Loco Yard. Shukla and Sada Shiv proceeded inside the Yard while the rest of the party stood at the gate. Shukla then met the appellant and informed him that he had brought the money; he was told that the appellant would go out in the Yard and accept the money. At about 3 p.m. the appellant went out to the Yard and, after making a round, came to the place which was comparatively secluded. He then asked Shukla to pay the money and Shukla gave him a bundle containing the marked currency notes of the value of Rs. 375. A signal was then made by Shukla and the raiding party immediately arrived on the scene. The magistrate disclosed his identity to the appellant and asked him to produce the amount paid to him by Shukla. The appellant then took out the currency notes from his pocket and handed them over to the magistrate. It is on these facts that charges under S. 161 of the Indian Penal Code and S. 5(2) of the Act were framed against the appellant.

(2.) The appellant denied the charge. He admitted that he had received Rs. 375 from Shukla but his case was that at his request Shukla had advanced the said amount to him by way of loan for meeting the expenses of the clothing of his children who were studying in school. The appellant alleged that since he had been in need of money he had requested Kishan Chand to arrange for a loan of Rs. 500; but knowing about his need Shukla offered to advance him the loan, and it was as such loan that Shukla paid him Rs. 375 and the appellant accepted the said amount. Both the prosecution and the defence led evidence to support their respective versions.

(3.) The learned special judge who tried the case believed the evidence given by Shukla, held that it was sufficiently corroborated, and found that the defence story was improbable and untrue. The learned Judge also held that on the evidence led before him the presumption under S. 4 of the Act had to be raised and that the said presumption had not been rebutted by the evidence led by the defence. Accordingly the learned judge convicted the appellate of both the offences charges and sentences him to suffer one year's rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 500 under S. 161 of the Code and two years rigorous imprisonment under S. 5 of the Act. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.