- (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: The complainant, S. K. Jain, manufactures rubber motor parts in his factory at Shahdara. On his application, the Delhi Electric Supply Undertaking at Gandhinagar sanctioned a power connection for his factory. The complainant deposited the estimate of expenses under the terms of the sanction. In spite of it, for a period of four months, no steps were taken by the employees of the Undertaking to install the poles and given in connection. S. P. Gupta, an Inspector of the Undertaking approached the complainant and solicited a bribe of Rs.125/- in consideration of giving the connection. It was settled that Rs. 25/- would be paid on June 20, 1968 and the balance of Rs. 100/- after the electric connection. The complainant had no intention to pay the bribe. Consequently, he contacted S. K. Katoch, Deputy Superintendent of the Anti-Corruption Police on June 20, 1968 at about 1 p.m. and apprised the latter about the demand of the bribe by Inspector Gupta. The Deputy Superintendent recorded the complainant's statement. Ex. P. W./1A. He then co-opted Daya Nand Dua (PW 2) and Bharat Prakash Khurana (PW 3), two clerks from the office of the Deputy Commissioner, and formulated a scheme for entrapping Gupta. The Police party reached the factory of the complainant at about 3.05 p.m. The complainant and the Panch witnesses went inside while the Police Officers waited outside. The complainant received a message from Gupta through a Lineman that instead of the 20th, he would be coming on the following day, that the installation of poles at site had commenced and the complainant would be required to pay more amount. The complainant conveyed this information to D. S. P. Katoch.
(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: "At about 12.30, I had come down from the first floor of my office and was going to my house to take my meal in the Hotel. I was called by Gupta. He was standing near the boundary wall. He inquired from me as to where I was going. I told him that I was going to take my food. He directed me that after taking my food I should visit the complainant's factory where the labour was working and told me to ask Jain to pay the money which Guptaji had demanded. I did not know what sort of money it was and for what purpose it was to be paid by S. K. Jain and to be taken by Gupta, accused. One Mitter Sen was also present at that time when this talk took place between me and Gupta accused. I accordingly, after taking my food went to the compalinant's factory and checked the work of the labour and then went to the complainant and asked him to pay me the money which had been demanded by Guptaji. Complainant told me to send Guptaji but I told him that he had asked me to bring the money. He therefore paid me a currency note of Rs. 100/- without disclosing anything that this was bribe money to be paid to Gupta co-accused.";