Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
5th March, 1954.
BHAGWATI, JAGANNADHA DAS AND VENKATARAMA AYYAR, JJ.
Rao Shiv Bahadur Singh and another, Appellants
Versus
States of Vindh-P., Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 7 of 1951.
Advocates appeared
Shri Jai Gopal Sethi, Senior Advocate, (Shri K. B. Asthana, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Rajinder Narain, Agent, for Appellant, No. 1; Shri S. C. Isaacs, Senior Advocate (Shri Murtza Fazl Ali, Advocate, with him), instructed by Shri Rajinder Narain, Agent, for Appellant No. 2; Shri Porus A. Mehta, Advocate, instructed by Shri R. H. Dhebar, Agent, for Respondent.
Held: Statement by accused made to police in course of investigation is inadmissible in evidence under S. 162, Cr. P.C. - Sections 162, 164-Statement made to persons assisting police or Magistrate.
Held: Every statement made to a person assisting the police during an investigation cannot be treated as a statement made to the police or to the Magistrate and as such excluded by section 162 or section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The question is one of fact and has got to be determined having regard to the circumstances of each case. On a scrutiny of the evidence of these two witnesses and the circumstances under which the statements came to be made by the Appellant No.1 to them we are of the opinion that the Appellant No.1 was asked by Shri Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate to make the statements to these two witnesses not with a view to a void the bar of section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code or by way of colourable pretence but by way of greater caution particularly having regard to the fact that the Appellant No. 1 occupied the position of a Minister of Industries in the State of Vindhya Pradesh." - Section 164-"Statement or confession."
Held: "Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code rendered the statement made by the Appellant No.1 to the police officers inadmissible.
1. Queen v. Thompson (1893) 2 Q. B. 12 applied. The investigation into the offence had already started immediately on the F .I.R. being registered by the police authorities and Pandit Dhanraj himself admitted in his evidence that the -investigation into the offence had thus started before the raid actually took place. The statement mane by the Appellant No.1 to Shri Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate was therefore made after the investigation had started and during the investigation of the offence and was therefore hit by section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code." - Sections 161, 463, 465, 460, 120-B- Trap for accepting bribe Evidence
By an agreement executed on 1-8-1936 the Panna Darbar granted to the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate lease to carryon diamond mining operations for a period of 15 years. There was an option reserved to the lessee to have a renewal of the lease for a further period of 15 years from the date of such expiration. On account of certain disputes between the parties the Political Minister of Panna by his order dated 31-10-1946 stopped the mining operations of the Syndicate. The State of Panna became integrated in the Unit of Vindhya Pradesh in July 1948. Appellant No. 1 became the Minister in charge of the Industries Deptt. in the Cabinet. Appellant No.2 held the post of Secretary Commerce and Industries Deptt. and was working under the Appellant No. 1. The Syndicate then moved to have the said order of the Panna Durbar rescinded. It was alleged that after some negotiations the Appellants told a representative of the Syndicate that it could be done on payment of a bribe of Rs. 25000/- The Syndicate did not approve of the idea, and a trap for catching the Appellant No. 1
(was suggested and the trap was actually laid in New Delhi in the Constitution House where Appellant No.1 was staying in connection with some official work.
Held: (2) It may be that the detection of corruption may some time call for the laying of traps, but there is no justification for the police authorities to bring about the taking of a bribe by supplying the bribe money to the giver where he has neither got it nor has the capacity to find it for himself. It is the duty of the police authorities to prevent crimes being committed. It is no part of their business to provide the instruments of the offence.
(2) "The independence of the judiciary is a priceless treasure to be cherished and safeguarded at all costs against predatory activities of this character and it is of the essence that public confidence in the independence of the judiciary should not be undermined by any such tactics adopted by the executive 1wthorities." (per Bhagwati J.). - Section 423-Appeal from acquittal.
Held: The position in regard to interference with orders of acquittal by the Trial Court is that the Appellate Court has full powers to review the entire evidence but proper weight and consideration should be given to the following matters: (1) The views of the Trial Court as to the credibility of witnesses; (2) the presumption of innocence which is strengthened by the acquittal; (3) the right of the accused to benefit of the doubt; and (4) t4e reluctance of the Appeal Court to disturb a finding arrived at by the Trial Judge after seeing the witnesses.
Judgment
BHAGWATI, J.: The Appellant No. 1 was the Minister of Industries and the Appellant No. 2 was the Secretary to the Government in the Commerce and Industries Department of the State of Vindhya Pradesh. The Appellant No. 1 was charged with having committed offences under Ss. 120-B, 161, 465 and 466 of the Indian Penal Code and the Appellant No. 2 under Ss. 120-B and 161 of the Indian Penal Code as adopted by the Vindhya Pradesh Ordinance No. 48 of 1949. They were tried in the Court of the Special Judge at Rewa under the Vindhya Pradesh Criminal Law Amendment (Special Courts) Ordinance No. I.VI of 1949 and the special Judge acquitted both of them.
The State of Vindhya Pradesh took an appeal to the Court of the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa. The Judicial Commissioner reversed the order of acquittal passed by the Special Judge and convicted both the Appellants of the several offences with which they were charged. The Judicial Commissioner awarded to the Appellant No. 1 a sentence of 3 years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 2000/- in default rigorous imprisonment of 9 months under S. 120-B, Penal Code and a sentence of three years rigorous imprisonment under S. 161, Penal Code, both the sentences to run concurrently. He imposed no sentence upon the Appellant No. 1 under Ss. 465 and 466, Penal Code.
He awarded to the Appellant No. 2 a sentence of rigorous imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default rigorous imprisonment for nine months under Section 120-B, Penal Code. He did not award any separate sentence to Appellant No. 2 under S. 161, Penal Code. On an application made to the Judicial Commissioner, Rewa for leave to appeal to the SC the Judicial Commissioner granted the Appellants leave to appeal under Art. 134 (1) (c) of the Constitution in regard to the four points of law raised in the case before him.
2. The constitutional points involved in the appeal came up for hearing before the Constitution Bench of this Court and were dealt with by the judgment of this Court delivered on22-5-1953. The Constitution Bench held that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge was competent and that there was no infringement of the fundamental rights of the Appellants under Arts. 14 and 20 of the Constitution Vide - Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of U. P., AIR 1953 SC 394 (A).
The appeal was accordingly directed to be posted for consideration whether it was to be heard on the merits. An application was thereafter made by the Appellants to this Court for leave to urge additional grounds and this Court on 2-10-1953 made an order that the appeal should be heard on merits. The appeal has accordingly come up for hearing and final disposal before us.
3. The case for the prosecution was as follows. By an agreement executed on 1-8-1936 between the Panna Darbar of the one part and the Panna Diamond Mining Syndicate represented by Sir Chinubhai Madholal and Hiralala Motilal Shah of the other part, the Panna Durbar granted to the Syndicate a lease to carry on diamond mining operations for a period of 15 years. The period of the lease was to expire on 30-10-1951 but there was an option reserved to the lesee to have a renewal of the lease for a further period of 15 years from the date of such expiration. There were disputes between the Syndicate on the one hand and the Panna Durbar on the other and by his order dated 31-10-1946 the Political Minister of Panna stopped the mining operations of the Syndicate.
The State of Panna became integrated in the Unit of Vindhya Pradesh in July 1948 and the administration of Panna came under the control and superintendence of the Government of Vindhya Pradesh with its seat at Rewa under his Highness the Maharaja of Rewa as Rajpramukh and the Appellant No. 1 became the Minister in charge of the Industries Department in the Cabinet which was formed by the Rajpramukh. The Appellant No. 2 held the post of Secretary, Commerce & Industries Department and was wor
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
