1975 Supreme(SC) 283

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Y.V. CHANDRACHUD, P.N. BHAGWATI, AND R.S. SARKARIA, JJ.
Trilok Chand Jain, Appellant
Versus
State of Delhi, Respondent.
Criminal Appeal No. 116 of 1971,
D/- 19-8-1975.
Advocates appeared
Mr. Uma Dutt, Advocate, for Appellant; Mr. Govind Das, Sr.Advocate, (Mr. R. N. Sachthey Advocate with him), for Respondent.

Headnote:

Prevention of Corruption Act - Section 5 (2) read with section 5 (1) (d) – Evidence Act - Section 101 - Indian Penal Code - Section 161 – Criminal Procedure Code – Section 342 - Rigorous imprisonment – Appeal against conviction - Whether government servant receiving money had requisite incriminatory motive is one of fact - Whether accused had received gratification as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing any favor or disfavor in the exercise of his official functions - On June He Came to factory along with his gang of laborers and started the installation work - Informed complainant that he would return to the factory either personally or send somebody else to collect amount - Complainant passed on this information also to D. S. P. Thereafter D. S. P. along with aforesaid witnesses and others came to complainant and settled details of the trap - Complainant produced one currency note of denomination - D. S. P. noted its No. and returned it to complainant with direction that he should pay it – Instead appellant a permanent laborer working came to factory and told complainant that he had been send by Inspector Gupta and that money be given to him - Complainant said that appellant should sent Gupta to receive the money - Appellant reiterated that he had been deputed by Gupta to collect money and the same be given to him - Thereupon complainant handed over the currency note to appellant in immediate presence of P. Ws. 2 and 3 - Appellant put note in pocket of his pants - On receiving agreed signal D. S. P. and his companions rushed in and recovered the currency note from person of appellant - D. S. P. then sent a report to Police Station on basis of which a case was registered - Appellant was arrested – Subsequently was also arrested - After obtaining necessary sanction appellant both were sent up for trial before Special Judge who acquitted Gupta but convicted appellant and sentenced him to one year’s rigorous imprisonment – Held, Charge under Section 5 (1) (d) of Act also cannot be sustained for reason that in peculiar circumstances of case it could not be reasonably said that appellant had obtained the currency-note by using some corrupt or illegal means or otherwise abusing his official position as a public servant - This point was canvassed on behalf of appellant before High Court but was negative by it in these terms - In this case appellant had told the complainant that he had been sent by Inspector Gupta and that he should pay the money - It has been held by the Special Judge while acquitting Inspector Gupta that he was not person who had sent appellant to collect any money from the complainant - Before contacting complainant the appellant had checked labor which was working in factory for installation of the lines for electricity - All this showed that he represented himself to complainant as a person connected with Department concerned - He also used corrupt means to ask the money on behalf of Inspector Gupta and thus this ingredient was satisfied – Court find ourselves unable to agree with this reasoning - Court have already noticed above that this was not case of prosecution as put in evidence that appellant had demanded the money on his own account by any express or implied representation to get any favor or service done to complainant – Rather positive case set up by prosecution in evidence was that money was demanded by Gupta and was received by appellant on his behalf pursuant to instructions of Gupta given to complainant earlier - Therefore if prosecution has failed to prove that money had been paid to the appellant pursuant to any demand of bribe made by Gupta court cannot make out a new case for prosecution to hold that amount had been received by appellant on his own or for some person other than Gupta - Court have already held that the appellant was a mere laborer who was not concerned with installation work at site or with giving of power connection to complainant - In view of categorical position taken by prosecution in evidence it does not now lie in their mouth to say that appellant must have received the money for himself or for some other person much less can it be said that the appellant has abused his official position or has used any illegal means in acting as an innocent carrier for Gupta - Thus essential ingredient of offence under Section 5 (1) (d) was lacking in this case - Appeal allowed