Chandrasekhara Aiyar, J. - (1.) Ram Krishan, the first appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 43, is a partner-proprietor in the firm of Kundan Lal Raja Rama of Saharanpur. Prem Chand, the second appellant, is a partner in the firm of Narain Prasad and Prem Chand in the same place. The appellant Gian Chand, is the munim of a firm called Lekh Raj Sahmbhu Nath. Some of the Saharanpur merchants, including the three firms, were suspected of exporting potatoes at concessional rates on false declarations or certificates that they were seed potatoes. Police investigation was proceeding in this connection at Saharanpur in October, 1951. Madan Lal, Railway Section Officer, examined as P. W. 4 in the case, was deputed by the Railway Department to assist the Special Police Establishment in the investigation. Labhu Ram, Railway Parcels clerk in the Railway at Saharanpur, was deputed by the Sation Master to help the Police party.
(2.) It is alleged by the prosecution that during the progress of the investigation, and after the houses and shop of the accused persons had been searched, Ram Kishan took Labhu Ram aside and proposed that the three firms would be prepared to pay Rs. 2,000 if the case was hushed up and that Madan Lal was to be sounded. Madan Lal refused to have anything to do with such a proposal, but as the accused persisted in their offer, it was ultimately decided that a trap should be laid for them at Delhi in Madan Lal's house. It is unnecessary to narrate in detail the steps taken in connection with this plan. The trap succeeded. The three accused and Labhu Ram were at Delhi on the morning of the 29th December and a increased sum of Rs. 5,000 was paid in the shape of currency notes to Madan Lal by Ram Kishan while two police officers and a Magistrate were hearing the conversation from an adjoining room and saw the payment through a hole in the door.
(3.) The appellants were charged under S. 120-B, Penal Code for criminal conspiracy to cause the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under S. 5(2), Prevention of Corruption Act (2 of 1947), to be committed by Madan Lal, one of the prosecution witnesses. They also stood charged with an offence under the same section read with S. 116, Penal Code for abetting the commission of criminal misconduct by the said Madan Lal by paying him a sum of Rs. 5,000 by way of illegal gratification, which offence was, however, not committed by him.;