J.N. Datta, J.C. - (1.)THE appellant Wareppam Babu Singh was convicted by the learned Special judge, Manipur, under Section 165A of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R. I. for a period of one year. He has preferred this appeal against that order.
(2.)THE facts leading to his prosecution and conviction are simple and lie within a short compass. On 21 -11 -55, the appellant along with two women was caught on the border between Manipur and Assam at Jiribam smuggling rice, by constable Abdul Rashid (P.W. l). The constable was taking them along with the rice to the Police Station at Jiribam. On the way they stopped for a while near the shop of one Satish in the Bazar known as Kalibari Bazar and there the appellant is alleged to have offered Re. 1/ - in change to the constable and to have requested him to let them and the rice go.
The incident was witnessed by Benoy Bhusan Shil (P.W. 2), who was In the shop of Satish. The constable took the money and taking the appellant and the women proceeded to the Thana. There he reported the matter to the Officer -In -charge (A Baruni Sharma P.W. 5) and after investigation the three accused were prosecuted. The learned Special Judge, convicted the appellant as stated, but acquitted the two women accused.

The defence was one of denial. After going through the evidence I am also inclined to agree with the view taken by the learned Special Judge. There was absolutely no reason either for the constable or for the eye -witness Benoy (P.W. 2). I to have falsely implicated the appellant. The very trend of the cross -examination conducted in behalf of the accused persons Shoos to show that there was some talk of bribe. But It is futile to say that the constable wanted more and on not being paid he trumped up this false case against the accused, or that the Officer -in -charge (P.W. 5) asked the constable to produce the money from big pocket, so that the accused persons may be falsely implicated. Even in that case their purpose would have been served by prosecuting the accused for the breach of the Manipur Poodgrains (Movement)' Control Order. In fact the accused persons were prosecuted for that offence and were convicted. The only question therefore was, whether the constable and Benoy (P.W. 1 and P.W. 5) were truthful witnesses. It is true that there are some discrepancies between the versions given by them but they are of a minor nature and do not detract from the veracity of these witnesses.

The fact that the constable reported the matter no sooner he reached the Thana, and the evidence of Honu (P.W. 3) which shows that the party had stopped near the shop of Satish and some talk was going on between the appellants and the constable further lend corroboration to their evidence. I have therefore no hesitation in coming to the finding that it was established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant offered Re. 1/ - as bribe to the constable to let off the appellant and the other accused persons. He therefore clearly committed an offence punishable under Section 165A of the IPC

(3.)IT was pointed out to me that Under 9. 4 of the Foodgrains Control Order, referred to above, a constable does not have the power to stop or search the accused persons and though this may not affect the validity of the prosecution still that will have the natural effect of rendering the prosecution story most Improbable. I cannot agree, because in fact the constable caught & took the accused persons to the Thana and they were prosecuted and convicted of that offence also.