VIGILANCE MANUAL VOLUME III - AP Online

342 DECISION - 105
Court have fully accepted the evidence of Raman Lal, Deputy
Superintendent of Police and Santramji and it was open to them to
convict the appellant solely on the basis of their evidence.
(105)
(A) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 7
(B) Trap — capacity to show favour
Capacity or intention to do the alleged act need not
be considered for offence under sec. 161 I.P.C.
(corresponding to sec. 7 of P.C. Act, 1988).
(C) P.C. Act, 1988 — Sec. 19
(D) Sanction of prosecution — under P.C. Act
Order sanctioning prosecution which shows that all
material in regard to the alleged offence was
considered fulfils the requirements of section 6 of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding
to sec. 19 of P.C. Act, 1988).
Shiv Raj Singh vs. Delhi Administration,
AIR 1968 SC 1419
The appellant, a Police Officer, went to the residence of one
Russel Nathaniel in Police uniform and accused him and his wife of
disposing of the illegitimate child of Miss Eylene to one Roshan Lal.
He also warned Nathaniels that if they wanted to save themselves
they should pay him a bribe of Rs.1000. Nathaniel paid him Rs. 90
and the appellant compelled Nathaniels to execute a document in
writing that they would pay him Rs. 700 later or go to prison. A trap
was laid and seven currency notes of Rs. 100 denomination given by
Nathaniel were found in possession of the appellant. He was
prosecuted and convicted under sections 161 I.P.C. and 5(2) of
Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (corresponding to secs. 7, 13(2)
of P.C. Act, 1988). The High Court maintained the conviction under
both sections of law.