2007 Supreme(SC) 1117

2007(6) Supreme 49
Supreme Court of india
(From M.P. High Court)
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. — Petitioner
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 885 of 2002
Decided on : 27-08-2007

Headnote:(a)Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 394(2), Proviso - Widow of deceased accused filing an application to allow her to continue the appeal by seeking leave of the Court – The provision confers right on near relatives of the accused who is convicted and sentenced to imprisonment and who dies during the pendency of the appeal to continue the appeal in certain cases by applying to the Court within thirty days of the death of the appellant – The delay of 149 days in filing the application condoned and prayer to continue appeal granted. (Para 10)

       (b)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Since repealed) – Section 4 – Once it is proved that the amount has been received by the accused, presumption under Section 4 of the Act would get attracted – It is true that the presumption is not ‘absolute’, but is rebuttable and the accused can prove otherwise for getting rid of such presumption – But mere total denial and accusation of false involvement could not constitute rebuttal. (Paras 19 and 20)

       (c)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Since repealed) – Section 5(1)(d) – Once the finding was recorded by the Trial Court that the accused had accepted the amount, it was wholly immaterial whether the said acceptance of amount was for him or for someone else – High Court erred in setting aside conviction of the accused. (Para 21)

       (d)Criminal Trial – Interested witnesses – Trial court discarding evidence of the complainant and the police officer as being interested witnesses – Well-settled that credibility of witness has to be tested on the touchstone of truthfulness and trustworthiness – It is not the law that police witnesses should not be relied upon and their evidence cannot be accepted unless it is corroborated in material particulars by other independent evidence –The presumption that every person acts honestly applies as much in favour of a Police Official as any other person – No infirmity attaches to the testimony of Police Officials merely because they belong to Police Force. (Para 24)

       AIR 1956 SC 217; (1996) 3 SCC 338; (2004) 9 SCC 193: JT (2003) 7 SC 114; (2000) 5 SCC 21: JT 2000 (4) SC 521; (1973) 2 SCC 793; (2007) 4 SCC 415: JT (2007) 3 SC 316 – Relied upon.

       (e)Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (Since repealed) – Section 4 – Both the Courts below recorded a positive finding that the accused accepted the amount, therefore Section 4 of the Act got attracted and presumption came into play against the accused – There was no rebuttal by the accused by leading any evidence whatsoever – Hence, the doctrine of preponderance of probability also had no application – The Trial Court was, therefore, wrong in not invoking Section 4 and raising presumption. (Para 30)

       Facts of the case :

       Appellant (Girja Prasad) was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Office of Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. It was the case of the prosecution that on September 20, 1983, Ramanarain Rajoria, Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur (PW 4) paid surprise visit to Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Dindori, District Mandla and found that several members of the staff were absent including the Ayurvedic Chikitsak himself. Consequently, he locked the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya and returned to Jabalpur. Ramnarain Rajoria was accompanied by the accused Girja Prasad Gupta. On September 27, 1983, the complainant Anup Kumar (PW 1) came to Jabalpur and informed to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari that he was on casual leave from September 7, 1983 to September 11, 1983. He also stated that he had submitted an application for extension of leave upto September 23, 1983 but the same was not available in the Office of Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur. On the same day, the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari went to Dindori and opened the lock of the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya. It is alleged that PW 4-Ramnarain Rajoria asked the complainant that either he should pay an amount of Rs.500/- through accused Girja Prasad or should suffer suspension. Anup Kumar paid Rs.300/- on the same day to accused Girja Prasad at Dindori and assured him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- on October 5, 1983 at Jabalpur.

       Complainant Anup Kumar was not willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. He, therefore, lodged a complaint in writing in the office of Lokayukt at Jabalpur. In the said complaint, it was stated that the complainant wanted the corrupt officer to be caught red-handed. Accordingly the accused was trapped. Sanction for prosecution of the accused was granted by the State Government. Charge sheet was submitted before the Special Judge and the accused was charged for offences punishable under Section 161, IPC and Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) of the Act.

       The Trial Court negatived the contention of the accused that sanction was not in accordance with law and the trial was vitiated. The Court, however, acquitted the accused holding that both the Panchas did not support the case of the prosecution. The Trial Court acquitted the accused.

       The State preferred an appeal against the acquittal and the High Court, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted the accused for the offences with which he was charged.

       Findings of the Court :

       Once the finding was recorded by the Trial Court that the accused had accepted the amount, it was wholly immaterial whether the said acceptance of amount was for him or for someone else. High Court erred in setting aside conviction of the accused.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.