Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(21st March, 1958)
N.H. BHAGWATI, T.L. VENKATARAMA AYYAR, S.K. DAS, A.K. SARKAR AND VIVIAN BOSE, JJ.
The State of Bihar, Appellant
Versus
Basawan Singh, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 134 of 1955.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India, M/s. A. K. Dutta and S. P. Verma, Advocates with him for Appellant; M/s. H. J. Umrigar and Ratnaparkhi, A. G. Advocates, for Respondent.
CRIMINAL LAW - BRIBERY - EVIDENCE - TESTIMONY OF RAIDING PARTY - CORROBORATION - INDEPENDENT WITNESSES - SEARCH WITNESSES - DISCOVERY OF CRUMPLED NOTE - SUFFICIENCY OF CORROBORATION - EXERCISE OF JURISDICTION UNDER ART. 136 OF THE CONSTITUTION - ACQUITTAL BY HIGH COURT - ERRONEOUS VIEW OF LAW - CONVICTION RESTORED.
Fact of the Case:
The respondent, a sub-inspector of police, was charged with accepting a bribe of Rs. 100 from two persons, Bhagwan Das and Parmeshwar Prasad. The prosecution case was that the respondent had demanded the bribe from Bhagwan Das in order to release some wheat which had been seized by the police. Bhagwan Das approached the Anti-Corruption Department of the Government of Bihar, and a trap was laid to catch the respondent red-handed. On the appointed day, Bhagwan Das and Parmeshwar Prasad met the respondent at the police station and paid him the bribe money in the presence of three officers from the Anti-Corruption Department and two Magistrates. The respondent was caught with the bribe money in his possession, and a crumpled note was found on the verandah of the police station.
Finding of the Court:
The trial court convicted the respondent of the offence under S. 161, Penal Code, and sentenced him to rigorous imprisonment for one year. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the respondent on the ground that there was no independent corroboration of the testimony of the witnesses of the raiding party. The High Court relied on a decision of the Supreme Court in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 S C R 1098, which held that the testimony of witnesses who form the raiding party must be discarded, unless corroborated by independent witnesses.
Issues: 1. Whether the decision in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 S C R 1098, lays down any universal or inflexible rule that the testimony of witnesses who form the raiding party must be discarded, unless corroborated by independent witnesses? 2. If not, what is the correct rule with regard to such testimony in cases of this nature? 3. Whether there is any independent corroboration of the testimony of the witnesses of the raiding party in the present case.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The decision in Shiv Bahadur Singh v. State of Vindhya Pradesh, 1954 S C R 1098, does not lay down any universal or inflexible rule that the testimony of witnesses who form the raiding party must be discarded, unless corroborated by independent witnesses. 2. The correct rule is that the testimony of such witnesses must be scrutinised with care and that the Court may, in a proper case, look for independent corroboration before convicting the accused person. 3. In the present case, there is independent corroboration of the testimony of the witnesses of the raiding party in the form of the evidence of two search witnesses who found a crumpled note, one of the series initialled by the officers from the Anti-Corruption Department, on the verandah of the police station.
Final Decision: The appeal is allowed. The judgment and order of the High Court are set aside. The respondent is convicted of the offence under S. 161, Penal Code, and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for one year.
Judgment
S. K. DAS, J. : This appeal by special leave has been brought by the State of Bihar from the judgment and order of a learned single Judge of the High Court of Patna, dated 13th January 1955, by which the learned Judge set aside the conviction and sentence passed against the present respondent Basawan Singh and acquitted him of a charge under S. 161, Penal Code, on which charge he had been convicted by the learned Special Judge of Gaya by his judgment and order, dated 22nd May 1953.
2. It is necessary to state here very briefly the salient facts of the prosecution case. One Bhagwan Das (prosecution witness No. 7) had a ration shop at a short distance from police station Arwal in the district of Gaya. One of the persons entitled to receive rationed articles from the said shop was Mahabir Prasad (prosecution witness No. 10), who was a brother of a businessman named Parmeshwar Prasad (prosecution witness No. 11). Mahabir Prasad held a ration card for ten units, and on 4th October 1951, he purchased five maunds of wheat on the strength of his ration card from the shop of Bhagwan Das. A cash memo was issued for the purpose and the sale was entered in the register of the shop. Mahabir Prasad carried the wheat in four bags on two ponies. He himself went ahead on a cycle and the ponies followed him. A gentleman named Ram Singhasan Singh, stated to be the Secretary of Arwal Thana Congress Committee, sent an information to the police station to the effect that Bhagwan Das had sold the wheat in what was called the "black market". On receipt of this information, Basawan Singh, who is respondent before us and who was at that time sub-inspector of police attached to the said police station, instituted a case under S. 7 of the Essential Supplies (Temporary Powers) Act, 1946, against Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad. He seized the wheat which was being carried on the two ponies, went to the shop of Bhagwan Das and questioned him about the transaction. Bhagwan Das denied the charge of black-marketing and alleged that the transaction was a bona fide sale on the strength and authority of a ration card. He showed the duplicate copy of the cash memo and the entry in the sale register to the respondent. The respondent then checked the stock of wheat in the shop of Bhagwan Das and found that the stock tallied with the relevant entry in the stock register. In the meantime Mahabir Prasad who had been sent for also came to the shop with his cash memo and ration card. These were shown to the respondent who, however, arrested both Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad and took them to the police station. It was alleged that at the police station the respondent demanded Rs. 500 as a bribe from Mahabir Prasad. Mahabir Prasad could not pay the amount, but said that he would consult his brother Parmeshwar Prasad and the latter would come and pay to the respondent whatever sum was thought necessary. Both Bhagwan Das and Mahabir Prasad were then released on bail. On the next day Bhagwan Das was called to the police station and a bribe of Rs. 500 was demanded from him also. It was alleged that the respondent told Bhagwan Das that if he did not pay the amount, the respondent would harass him; but if Bhagwan Das paid the amount, the respondent would submit a final report and no case would be started against him. Bhagwan Das expressed his inability to pay such a big amount and it was alleged that ultimately the amount was reduced to Rs. 300. Bhagwan Das, however, did not pay it for some time, and the prosecution case was that the respondent took wheat from the shop of Bhagwan Das, without payment of any price, between the date 26th October 1951, and 30th November 1951; in this way, seven maunds and ten seers of wheat, it was alleged were taken by the respondent from the shop of Bhagwan Das, though the sales were noted in the sales were noted in the sale register in the names of various persons. On 1st December 1951, the respondent , it was stated, agreed to accept Rs
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
