1999 Supreme(Pat) 863

PATNA HIGH COURT
Narendra Narain Singh, J.
Mahendra Narain Choudhary
Versus
State Of Bihar
Criminal Appeal No. 124 of 1989 ;
Decided On : SEPTEMBER 6, 1999

The court held that a sanction order for the prosecution of a public servant is valid if it is passed by the competent authority and it is not shown that the authority had not applied its mind to the matter.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL LAW - CORRUPTION - PUBLIC SERVANT - ACCEPTANCE OF BRIBE - SECTION 161 OF THE INDIAN PENAL CODE AND SECTION 5(2) READ WITH SECTION 5(I) (D) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - VALIDITY OF SANCTION ORDER - PRESUMPTION UNDER SECTION 4(1) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - REDUCTION OF SENTENCE DUE TO DELAY IN TRIAL.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant, a police officer, was convicted of accepting a bribe of Rs. 600 from the complainant for showing favor in a case lodged by the complainant. The appellant demanded Rs. 600/- from the complainant for taking action against the trespassers. After about 10 to 15 days, the complainant, with the help of Inspector of Police, Suresh Prasad of Gandhi Maidan Police Station, got the trespassers removed, but he found his belongings missing and when he approached the appellant for action the demand of payment of aforesaid of Rs. 600/- was made by the appellant. The complainant, thereafter, filed a complaint before the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Cabinet, Vigilance, for taking action against the appellant. On receiving that complaint, Ram Pravesh Tiwary PW-4, watcher, was deputed to verify the allegation. The case of prosecution is that on 15-05-1979 he, along with Jagat Bihari Sah PW-14 went to Buddha Colony Police Station and he reported that in his presence also, the accused demanded Rs. 600/- for submitting charge-sheet in the case filed by complainant, Jagat Bihari Sah, and that complainant on that very day paid Rs. 100/- to this appellant who accepted it and asked him to pay remaining Rs. 500/- which the complainant assured to pay within a week. The report (Exhibit 1) of the watcher was submitted on the same day and the complainant was directed to come on 22-05-1999 with the money which he proposed to pay to this appellant. On 22-05-1979 a case was instituted against this appellant and a raiding party was organised headed by Deputy Superintendent of Police, Ramesh Kumar Singh. The complainant produced five G.C. notes of Rs. 100/- each in the presence of the Deputy Superintendent of Police and the Special Magistrate, Shri V.S.Pathak, PW-6 and a memorandum (Exhibit 4 of the G.C. notes was prepared and the G.C. notes were then returned to the complainant with a direction that he would pay the same to the appellant only on his demand as bribe. The watcher was also instructed to go along with the complainant to this appellant and he was further instructed to give signal by rubbing his head and the appellant accepted the bribe money. The case of prosecution is that the raiding party reached at Buddha Colony Police Station at about 09.00 a.m. and the complainant and the watcher went inside the police station, while others waited in the neighborhood for signal. Further case of prosecution is that this appellant demanded and accepted the sum of Rs. 500/- given by the complainant in presence of the watcher PW-4 and kept G.C. notes in this upper pocket of bush-shirt and, meanwhile, the watcher went out of the room and gave signal whereupon members of the raiding party rushed in. It is alleged that this appellant tried to take out and throw the money from his pocket but the Vigilance staff resisted but the appellant any how threw the notes on floor by tearing off his pocket. Thereafter, independent witnesses were called and in their presence the thrown-out notes of Rs.500/- and his torn pocket were seized and were compared with the memorandum of G.C. notes prepared in the Vigilance Department. The case of prosecution is that the recovered G.C.notes were the same which were mentioned in the memorandum of G.C. notes (Ext. 4). Seizure list (Ext. 5) was prepared and a copy of the same was given to the appellant and the appellant was arrested.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 600 from the complainant. The court also found that the sanction order for the prosecution of the appellant was valid and that the appellant had not been able to rebut the presumption under Section 4(1) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the sanction order for the prosecution of the appellant was valid? 2. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 600 from the complainant? 3. Whether the appellant was entitled to any reduction in sentence due to the delay in trial?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction order for the prosecution of the appellant was valid as it was passed by the competent authority and it was not shown that the authority had not applied its mind to the matter. 2. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 600 from the complainant. The court relied on the evidence of the complainant, the watcher, and the members of the raiding party. 3. The court held that the appellant was entitled to a reduction in sentence due to the delay in trial. The court noted that the case had been pending for twenty years and that the appellant had been under constant strain of receiving punishment during that time.

Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal but reduced the sentence of the appellant to the period already undergone. The court also imposed a fine of Rs. 2,000/- on the appellant.