SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2009(2) Crimes 377 (SC)
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
(From Rajasthan High Court)
Lokeshwar Singh Panta and B. Sudershan Reddy, JJ.
Krishna Ram — Appellant
versus
State of Rajasthan — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 402 of 2001
Decided on : 17-03-2009

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant :Manoj Prasad, Ishar Singh, K.K. Srivastava, Janesh Singh, Advocates.
For the Respondent:Manish Singhvi, AAG, Milind Kumar, Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates.

IMPORTANT POINT
If the view of the court below is unreasonable and perverse, the order of acquittal can be interfered with.

Headnote:(a) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 378 – If two views are possible, the rule of prudence should guide the High Court not to disturb the order of acquittal made by the trial court – It is also equally well-settled that where the material on record leads to a sole and inescapable conclusion of guilt of the accused, the judgment of acquittal will call for interference by the appellate court. (Para 6)

        (2006) 13 SCC 303; (2006) 1 SCC 401 – Relied upon.

        (b) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Section 20 – Unless a demand for bribe is proved beyond reasonable doubt the presumption as contemplated under Section 20 cannot be invoked – However once it is proved that the money was recovered from the possession of the appellant, the burden of presumption under Section 20 shifts upon the appellant. (Paras 7 and 9)

        (2006) 1 SCC 401 – Relied upon.

        (c) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 – Sections 7 and 13(1)(d) – Every acceptance of illegal gratification, whether preceded by a demand or not, would be covered by Section 7 – However, if the acceptance of an illegal gratification is in pursuance of a demand by the public servant, then it would also fall under Section 13(1)(d). (Para 10)

        (2006) 11 SCC 473 – Relied upon.

        (d) Code of Criminal Procedure,1973 – Section 378 – The view taken by the trial court appearing to be unreasonable and perverse – High Court rightly interfered with the order of acquittal. (Para 11)

       Facts of the case :

        1. Appellant was trapped, arrested and proceeded against under the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988.

        2. The trial court acquitted the appellant.

        3. The High Court, however, set aside the order of acquittal and convicted and sentenced the appellant.

       Finding of the Court :

        It appears that the view taken by the trial court drawn on the evidence on record is found to be unreasonable and perverse and the High Court has rightly interfered with the order of acquittal.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.

       

JUDGMENT

Lokeshwar Singh Panta, J.—

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment and order dated 22.12.2000 passed by the High Court of Rajasthan, Bench at Jodhpur in S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 673 of 1999 by which the learned Single Judge of the High Court has set aside the order of acquittal of the accused and convicted him for offences under Sections 7 and 13(1)(D) read with Section 13(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988 [for short “P.C. Act, 1988"] and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-. In default of payment of fine, the accused shall suffer further simple imprisonment for two months.

2. Brief facts, which led to the trial of the accused, are as under:-

2.1] Krishna Ram - accused-appellant herein in the year 1991 was posted as Patwari and was Incharge of the Revenue Circle 84 RBB Tehsil Raisinghnagar, District Sri Ganganagar. On 20.03.1991, Gurmukh Singh-complainant [PW-2], resident of 85, RB visited the Rajasthan State Investigation Bureau (SB) Ganganagar Post and submitted an application to Hazari Lal [PW-8], Inspector Chowki Incharge in which he stated that he was holder of land measuring 10 bighas 5 biswas in Chak 85 RB and land measuring 12.5 bighas in Lakha Tiba on the basis of temporary cultivation lease. He wanted to convert his temporary lease into permanent lease for which purpose he filled in the requisite application form (Exhibit P7) and presented the same before Shri Jagmal Singh [PW-9], the Sub-Divisional Officer, Raisinghnagar, who in turn marked it to the Tehsildar, Raisinghnagar and handed over the original application to the complainant. The Tehsildar in turn marked the application to the Patwari concerned.

2.2] On 18.03.1991, PW-2 approached the appellant (Patwari) and presented the application (Ex.-P-7) to him for giving his report thereon. The complainant alleged that the appellant had demanded a sum of Rs.1,000/- as bribe money for giving favourable report in his (complaints) favour in regard to allotment of the lands to him on permanent lease holders rights. PW-2 pleaded to the appellant that he did not possess enough money to meet his demand whereupon the appellant asked the complainant to come to his house with an amount of Rs.500/- instead of Rs.1,000/- as demanded by him on an earlier occasion. It was also stated by the complainant that he was not willing to pay the bribe money to the appellant and wanted to get him apprehended by the police for demanding illegal gratification and it was with that sole object that the complaint (Ex.-P-13) came to be presented to PW-8 Hazari Lal-Inspector, Bureau Incharge of Chowki, Ganganagar. On receipt of the complaint of the complainant, PW-8 summoned Askaran (PW-1) and Raje Ram (PW-3) employees of UIT, Ganganagar, who were introduced to the complainant and they were apprised of complete gist of the complaint. Both the witnesses had voluntarily agreed to participate in the trap proceedings proposed to be laid against the appellant. Four currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination and two notes of Rs.50/- denomination, i.e. total amounting to Rs.500/-, were arranged by the complainant for payment to the appellant. The Bureau employees then treated the currency notes with phenolphthalein powder which were kept in the left side pocket of the complainant’s shirt who was instructed not to touch the money any more and the same shall be handed over to the appellant on his demand. The complainant was asked to give a signal to the members of the trapping party soon after payment of money to the appellant by putting his hand on his turban. The witnesses were also instructed to stand close by to the complainant to enable the police party to apprehend the appellant red handed. Thereafter, the trapping party reached near Gulbadiwali Haveli at Raisinghnagar where the appellant was residing. The appellant at that time was sitting with two or three persons in his house, but the complainant asked him to come outside the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top