indicated that the prevailing pre-condition for getting Indira Awas allotted to anyone was that the beneficiary had to pay the bribe. The Court is very much aware that paying bribe is an offence, but when it is alleged as an ‘intent’ then in that case it has to be judged as an ordinary fact and considering that aspect of the case, it appears a plain demand which was made by the appellant from the informant and others. As such, there could not be any element of ‘ deception ’ as is ordinarily meant in such circumstances. The appellant was neither playing any fraud nor was concealing any fact neither he was over stating any fact so as to keeping the informant and others in some sort of misconception of a fact so as to falling prey to the nefarious designs of the appellant as regards the informant and others being ‘cheated’ by him. The facts and evidence of the case disclose that the unlawful demand for paying a bribe of Rs. 500/- only in order to getting one unit of Indira Awas allotted was known to all and sundry as the go of the business and as such, one may not be mistaken to be cheated. In fact, the ordinary meaning of word ‘ deception ’ which implies defrauding a person by misrepresenting a fact, appears completely absent from the facts of the case, and, as such, the finding of guilt recorded against the appellant by the trial Judge appears completely outside the purview of Section 420 of the Indian Penal Code.
