1. Attempt to bribe a public servant — Conviction under Section 165A, Indian Penal Code — Appeal against reversal of acquittal. (Para 2 , 3 , 4 )
Back
Next 
1960 Supreme(SC) 56
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
26th February, 1960.
B.P. SINHA, C.J.I., S.J. IMAM, A.K. SARKAR, K.N. WANCHOO AND J.C. SHAH, JJ.
Mohammed Dastagir, Appellant
Versus
The State of Madras, Respondent.
The Union of India, Intervener.
Criminal Appeal No. 137 of 1957.
Advocates appeared
Mr. C. B. Aggarwala, Senior Advocate (M/s. S. N. Andley, J.. B. Dadachanji,. Rameshwar Nath and P. L. Vohra, Advocates of M/s. Rajinder Narain and Co. with him), for Appellant; M/s. R. Ganapathy Iyer and T. M. Sen, Advocates, for Respondent; Mr. C. K. Daphtary, Solicitor-General of India (M/s. H. J. Umrigar and T. M. Sen, Advocates, with him), for Intervener.
Advocates:
C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, H.J.Umrigar, J.B.DADACHAN, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN
C.B.AGARWAL, C.K.DAFTARY, H.J.Umrigar, J.B.DADACHAN, P.L.VOHRA, R.Ganapathy Iyer, RAJINDAR NARAIN, RAMESHWAR NATH ROY, S.N.ANDLEY, T.M.SEN
The court held that Article 20(3) of the Constitution requires both a formal accusation and compulsion to prevent self-incrimination; producing money on one's person without such conditions is not protected. Additionally, notice under Section 422 CrPC is satisfied if the accused is represented and aware of the appeal.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 165A - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 422 - Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Attempt to bribe a public servant - Notice to accused in appeal against acquittal - Self-incrimination - Perversity of findings - Where the accused had entered appearance through advocates and was aware of the appeal, the requirement of giving notice under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is satisfied, even if personal service is not proved. (Para 8)
(B) Constitution of India - Article 20(3) - Right against self-incrimination - For the protection under Article 20(3) to be available, two conditions must be met: (1) the individual must be a person accused of an offence, and (2) they must be compelled to be a witness against themselves. The production of currency notes on the person of an individual, in the absence of a formal accusation or coercion, does not amount to testimonial compulsion. (Para 9)
(C) Appeal - Scope of interference with acquittal - An appellate court is justified in setting aside an order of acquittal if the trial court's view of the evidence is found to be perverse. (Para 10)
Facts of the case:
An individual was charged with attempting to bribe a high-ranking police officer by offering money in an envelope to drop action regarding a dispute with a village official. The trial court acquitted the accused, finding the solitary testimony of the police officer insufficient. The High Court reversed this decision, convicting the accused and sentencing them to six months rigorous imprisonment and a fine. The accused appealed to the Supreme Court, challenging the conviction on grounds of procedural non-compliance regarding notice, violation of the constitutional right against self-incrimination, and the High Court's reversal of the acquittal.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the accused was fully apprised of the appeal through his advocates, satisfying the requirements of Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Regarding Article 20(3), the court held that the accused was not a "person accused of an offence" at the time the money was produced, nor was there evidence of compulsion. Furthermore, the trial court's distrust of the police officer's evidence was deemed perverse, as there was no reason for the officer to concoct such a specific story.
Issues: Whether the failure to personally serve notice under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure vitiates the judgment; whether the production of money under the direction of a police officer violates the privilege against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution; and whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's order of acquittal.
Ratio Decidendi: Notice under Section 422 is satisfied if the accused is represented by counsel and is aware of the proceedings. The guarantee against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) requires both a formal accusation and compulsion; neither was present when the accused produced the money. An appellate court may reverse an acquittal if the lower court's findings are perverse.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Non-compliance with Section 422, Code of Criminal Procedure — Violation of Article 20(3), Constitution — Perversity in setting aside acquittal — Severity of sentence. (Para 7 )
3. Notice of appeal effectively given through advocates — No testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3) — Testimony of public servant found credible and not perverse. (Para 8 , 9 , 10 )
4. Notice under Section 422 CrPC is satisfied if accused is apprised through counsel — Article 20(3) requires both formal accusation and compulsion. (Para 8 , 9 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction and sentence upheld. (Para 11 , 12 )
6. Does notice to the advocate satisfy the requirement of giving notice to the accused under Section 422 of the Code of Criminal Procedure?
Yes, if the court is informed that the accused has entered appearance through advocates and is apprised of the appeal, it cannot be said that notice of the appeal had not been given to the accused. (Para 8 )
7. What are the prerequisites for the protection against self-incrimination under Article 20(3) of the Constitution?
Two facts must be established: first, that the individual concerned was a person accused of an offence, and second, that he was compelled to be a witness against himself. (Para 9 )
8. Does the production of money upon a police officer's request constitute testimonial compulsion under Article 20(3)?
No, if there was no formal accusation against the person relating to the commission of an offence and the circumstances do not establish that the person was compelled to produce the money, Article 20(3) is not attracted. (Para 9 )
Judgment
IMAM, J. : This is an appeal on a certificate granted by the High Court of Madras.
2. The appellant was tried by the Special Judge of Tiruchirappalli under S. 165A of the Indian Penal Code for attempting to bribe Mr. Kaliyappan, Deputy Superintendent of Police of Ramanathapuram. The Special Judge came to the conclusion that the charge framed against the accused had not been established. He, accordingly, acquitted the appellant. Against the order of acquittal the State of Madras appealed to the High Court of Madras under S. 417 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The High Court came to the conclusion that the evidence established that the appellant had attempted to bribe the aforesaid Deputy Superintendent of Police. It accordingly convicted the appellant under S. 165A, Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to 6 months rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000, in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.
3. According to the prosecution case, the appellant attempted to bribe Mr. Kaliyappan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, by offering him a sum of money contained in an envelope at his bungalow in the morning of June 14, 1954. In order to appreciate the circumstances in which the bribe was offered, reference to certain events which led to the incident on June 14 at the bungalow of the Deputy Superintendent of Police becomes necessary. In village Irwadi there are two factions one headed by the appellant and his brother and the other headed by the village munsif. On June 3, 1954 two complaints reached the Keelakarai Police Station, one by the appellant against the village munsif and the other by the village munsif against the appellant. According to the appellant on June 3, 1954 after prayers in the mosque the village munsif had abused him and had attempted to murder him with a knife. Some persons intervened and he managed to escape but was chased by the village munsif to his house. The version of the village munsif was that he was busy that day preparing the receipt for the release of the appellant s impounded cattle when the latter abused him, beat him with his shoe and kicked him in the stomach causing minor injuries. On June 5, 1954 the appellant met Mr. Kaliyappan at the Central Bus-stand at Madurai and handed over to him a petition, Ext. P-1 in which he complained against the village munsif. Mr. Kaliyappan made an endorsement on this petition directing the Inspector of Ramanathapuram Circle to send for both the parties and warn them against doing acts which would create a breach of the peace in the village and that this petition was not to be sent to the Sub-Inspector (P. W. 8) as it was alleged that he was siding against the appellant. On June 12, 1954, Mr. Kaliyappan sent a memo (Ext. P-2) to the Inspector of Ramanathapuram Circle directing him to take steps to see that peace was preserved in the village. The Police Officer was also asked to take action against the offenders with respect to whom there was evidence in connection with the occurrence of June 3, 1954. Mr. Kaliyappan also, in view of the situation, had directed this Police Officer to see whether steps should not be taken to seize the revolver of the appellant s brother Rashid for which he had a licence. The Inspector of Ramanathapuram Circle thereafter prepared a detailed report (Ext. P-7) of the result of his enquiry and handed it over to Mr. Kaliyappan on June 13, 1954. On the night of June 13, 1954, at about 10 p.m. the appellant went to the bungalow of Mr. Kaliyappan, the Deputy Superintendent of Police, at Ramanathapuram and complained against the Inspector of Police of Ramanathapuram Circle and the Sub-Inspector requesting the Deputy Superintendent of Police to look into the matter personally and not to leave the investigation exclusively in the hands of the Inspector. Mr. Kaliyappan told the appellant that he knew nothing about the case and could not say or do anything off hand and that the appellant should see him about
