Back
PATNA HIGH COURT
K.Sahai, J.
Nil Madhab Patnaik
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1953 ; 376 of 1953 ;
Decided On : AUGUST 12, 1954
CRIMINAL LAW - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 6 - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - REQUIREMENTS - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE, 1898 - SECTIONS 190, 191, 193 - SPECIAL JUDGE - COGNIZANCE OF OFFENCE - CRIMINAL LAW AMENDMENT ACT, 1952 - SECTIONS 7(2), 8(1), 8(3) - APPLICABILITY TO SCHEDULED AREAS - CONSTITUTION OF INDIA, 1950 - FIFTH SCHEDULE, CLAUSE 5 - NOTIFICATION BY GOVERNOR - NECESSITY.
Fact of the Case:
Two police officers were accused of receiving illegal gratification from villagers to refrain from taking action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. The sanction for prosecution was granted by the Deputy Inspector-General of Police, Southern Range. The Special Judge took cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952.
Finding of the Court:
1. The sanction for prosecution complied with legal requirements as it was proved by extraneous evidence that the facts of the case were before the sanctioning authority and were considered before granting the sanction. 2. The Special Judge was competent to take cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge unless inconsistent with the Act. Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the accused's right to be tried by another Court, is inconsistent with Section 7(2) of the Act, which mandates that certain offenses be tried by the Special Judge. 3. Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution does not require a notification by the Governor before a law can be enforced in a scheduled area. Acts of Parliament and Acts of the State Legislature are applicable to every part of the territory of India and the State, respectively, including scheduled areas. 4. The evidence established that the money collected from the villagers was paid to the first appellant as illegal gratification to refrain from making a report for action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The second appellant was guilty of aiding and abetting the first appellant in realizing illegal gratification.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution complied with legal requirements? 2. Whether the Special Judge was competent to take cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952? 3. Whether Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution requires a notification by the Governor before a law can be enforced in a scheduled area? 4. Whether the evidence established that the money collected from the villagers was paid to the first appellant as illegal gratification? 5. Whether the second appellant was guilty of aiding and abetting the first appellant in realizing illegal gratification?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The sanction for prosecution complied with legal requirements as it was proved by extraneous evidence that the facts of the case were before the sanctioning authority and were considered before granting the sanction. 2. The Special Judge was competent to take cognizance of the case under Section 8(1) of the Criminal Law Amendment Act, 1952, as the provisions of the Code of Criminal Procedure apply to the proceedings before a Special Judge unless inconsistent with the Act. Section 191 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which provides for the accused's right to be tried by another Court, is inconsistent with Section 7(2) of the Act, which mandates that certain offenses be tried by the Special Judge. 3. Clause 5 of the Fifth Schedule of the Constitution does not require a notification by the Governor before a law can be enforced in a scheduled area. Acts of Parliament and Acts of the State Legislature are applicable to every part of the territory of India and the State, respectively, including scheduled areas. 4. The evidence established that the money collected from the villagers was paid to the first appellant as illegal gratification to refrain from making a report for action under Section 107, Criminal Procedure Code. 5. The second appellant was guilty of aiding and abetting the first appellant in realizing illegal gratification.
Final Decision: 1. The appeal filed by the first appellant was dismissed. 2. The appeal filed by the second appellant was dismissed with the modification that his conviction was altered to one under Section 161/109, Penal Code.
Kamla Sahai, J.
1. Both the appellants have been convicted under Sec.161, Penal Code. Appellant Nil Madhah Patnaik, who has filed Criminal Appeal No. 365 of 1953, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year and appellant Md. Yasin Ahmad Khan, who has filed Criminal Appeal No. 376 of 1953, has been sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months. As . both the appeals are directed against the same judgment, this judgment will govern them both.
2. Appellant Nil Madhab Patnaik was attached to Kandra Police outpost in Singhbhurn distinct as an assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. Yasin Ahmad Khan was attached to the same police outpost as a constable. Village Bikaneepur lies within the jurisdiction of that outpost.
3. The prosecution case is that the wife of Phagu Manjhi (P. W. 15), a resident of village Bikaneepur, was indisposed from 30-9-1952. It was sus- pected that she was a victim of witchcraft. The villagers, thereupon, went to village Dhatnidih in order to consult Gura Manjhi, who acted as a sakha (a man who drives out evil spirits). Gura Manjhi said that a ghost living in the bari of an old woman who was the elder wife of a man and who was living close to the house of Phagu Manjhi was responsible for the illness. The villagers identified Champa Manjhin (P. W. 28) as the woman described by Guru Manjhi. Three fowls were sacrificed in order to propitiate the evil spirit. Appellant Nil Madhab Patnaik learnt about this affair two days later on 10-10-1952. He sent for Thikadar Shimanta Mahato (P. W. 16) and made enquiries from him. It may be mentioned that a thikadar performs the functions of a chaukidar in the locality where the occurrence in question took place. The assistant Sub-Inspector then went to village Bikaneepur on the same date, i.e., the 10th October, arriving there at about 5 p.m. He had already sent Constable Yasin Ahmad Khan to the village and he had arrived there at about 4.30 p.m. Under the directions of appellant Patnaik, Shimanta Mahato (P. W. 16) brought together about twenty eight residents of village Bikaneepur and other neighbouring villages on the village road. Appellant Patnaik then threatened them by saying that he would chalan them. In due, course, he put forward the suggestion that he might let them off if he was paid Rs. 500. There was a good, deal of higgling and, ultimately, it was agreed that the villagers should pay the appellant at the rate of Es. 2/8 per head:
Rukmini Kumar Chatterji (P. W. 2), who is also known as Thakiir, lives in village Bikaneepur as he is an employee in the Kandra Glass Factory close by. He began realising money from the assembled villagers and, with the exception of four persons, all paid him at the rate of Rs. 2/8. One of the remaining four paid him Rs. 2/4/-, The total collection came to Rs. 62/4/-, out of which P. W. 2 handed over Rs. 50 to appellant Patnaik and Rs. 12/4 to appellant Yasin Ahmad Khan. Thereafter, appellant Patnaik allowed all except Bikram (P. W. 13) and Phagu (P. W. 15) to go. He demanded a further sum of Rs. 100 each from these two witnesses for their release. After some negotiation, it was settled that they would pay him Rs. 30 each and they would also give him a goat each next day. At about midnight, both the appellants went back to their outpost.
4. Mr. Mandal (P. W. 8) was then the Sub-, Divisional Officer of Saraikela. Kandra outpost lies in that Sub-Division. On 11-10-1952, he !earnt from Banamali Mahato (P. W. 27) that appellant Patnaik had realised bribe from the villagers of Bikaneepur. He immediately sent a slip to the Inspector to follow; him and he proceeded to Bikaneepur. He made enquiries there and examined several witnesses. Thereafter," he went to Kandra Police outpost and examined the station diary as well as the personal diary of appellant Patnaik. He again visited Bikaneepur next day along with the Inspector (P. W. 14) and examined seven more witnesses who were not available on the first day.
AI
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
