- (1.) Criminal Appeal No. 96/90. On a successful trap being laid the appellant was tried and found guilty for having accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/- from the complainant. The prosecution story is of the usual kind. The demand of bribe was made by the appellant under the threat that he would, as an authorised Food Inspector, purchased samples of milk from the complainant and put him to harassment. Otherwise in his capacity as Health Inspector he had complained to the authorities concerned about the insanitation created by the complainant in keeping cattle in his railway quarters. In these circumstances, the C. B. I. and the Department of Vigilance were moved into matter and the trap was organised. The tainted currency of two notes of rupees 50/- denomination were found in the pocket of the appellant on the successful completion of the trap. The version of the appellant was that the complainant had walked into his office and on its own put the two notes on the top of an almirah placed in the covered verandah in front of his office and that the C.B.I. officials on arrival had forcibly put those currency notes in his pocket. His case was that the C.B.I. Inspector was inimical towards him and that was the reason for false implication.
(2.) The defence of the appellant pre-supposes that there was a raid. He has given the counter-version stated above, but it does not probabilise in the facts and circumstances. Had the C. B. I. people been interested in foisting a case against the appellant and that too nakedly, it was no cause for the raid party to have created a drama of putting the notes into his pocket and in that way to have soiled his hands with phenolphthalein powder. Without any such ritual the case could have been foisted. The appellant led no contemporaneous evidence from which it could be proved or inferred that the appelant was a victim of an organised false trap. Both the Courts below having found him guilty of the offence, it is difficult for us to upset the conviction. Still to be on the safer side we have read with aid of the appellant's counsel most of the prosecution evidence. The conviction under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act thus appears to us to be well based requiring on interference.
(3.) On the sentence, however, we feel that the appellant deserves some concession. At the time of seeking exemption from surrendering in this Court, two certificates of Doctors were appended wherefrom it is evident that the appellant is an angina patient. Suffering from coronary diseases requiring medical attention. In his sworn affidavit he has described himself to be of 60 years of age. Keeping these factors in view, we would alter the sentence of the appellant to four months simple imprisonment and sustain the sentence of fine. With this modification in the sentence of the appellant, the appeal otherwise fails. Ordered accordingly. (Prepared on 8-2-1995) CIVIL APPEAL NO. 9089 OF 1994 :;