Back
1987 Supreme(Del) 47
High Court Of Delhi
ANAND SARUP - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL 417 of 1977
Decided On : 01/30/1987
GURCHARAN SINGH, K.B.Andley, R.P.Lao
In a bribery case, the uncorroborated evidence of the complainant is not sufficient to convict the accused, and the recovery of money alone, divorced from the circumstances under which it was paid, is not sufficient to convict the accused.
Headnote:
BRIBERY - S. 161, I. P. C. AND S. 5 (2) READ WITH S. 5 (1) (D) OF THE PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - CORROBORATION OF COMPLAINANT'S EVIDENCE - NECESSITY - UNRELIABLE SUBSTANTIVE EVIDENCE - RECOVERY OF MONEY ALONE NOT SUFFICIENT FOR CONVICTION.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Anand Sarup, was convicted and sentenced for accepting a bribe of Rs. 10 from the complainant, Hari Babu Vashisht, in exchange for providing a certified copy of a court order. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded the bribe and that the complainant paid it to him in the presence of two panch witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the panch witnesses did not corroborate the complainant's testimony and that the report of the chemical examiner did not support the prosecution's claim that the appellant had accepted the bribe. The court also found that there were material contradictions in the complainant's statement and that the circumstances indicated that the appellant was not involved in the preparation or delivery of the certified copy.
Issues: 1. Whether the complainant's evidence was corroborated by reliable evidence. 2. Whether the recovery of money alone was sufficient to convict the appellant.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the evidence of the panch witnesses did not corroborate the complainant's testimony and that the report of the chemical examiner did not support the prosecution's claim that the appellant had accepted the bribe. 2. The court held that the recovery of money alone was not sufficient to convict the appellant, especially in light of the unreliable substantive evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence of the appellant, and acquitted him.
( 2 ) IN order to appreciate the challenge of his conviction it is relevant to keep in mind few salient features of the prosecution case.
( 3 ) HARI Babu Vashisht is a tenant. His landlord had filed an eviction case against him. The case was decided in his favour. The landlord had preferred an appeal which was pending in the court of Shri M. K. Chawla, the then Additional District Judge. The next date of hearing was 5th Aug. 1976. Hari Babu Vashisht asked his son Shekhar Vashisht to apply for a certified copy of the order of the lower court dt/-31st Jan. 1976. This was required to be filed in the appellate court. The copying Agency gave the date as 19-6-76. On that date, the copy was however not ready. On 3-8-76, Hari Babu Vashisht himself went to the Copying Agency (Civil ). He enquired from the accused, who was posted as L. D. C. about the fate of his application. The accused informed him that his application was not available and that he should apply afresh. Hari Babu Vashisht was not satisfied with the reply. He approached Shri Shanti Narain Gupta, incharge Copying Section. On Shri Gupta s request Hari Babu moved a fresh application for the copy on the same day and gave the same to another Clerk for registration. That clerk had given the date for collecting the copy as 10th Aug. 1976. As the copy was required to be produced on 5th Aug. 1976, Hari Babu Vashisht again approached the Incharge Copying section. Shri Gupta made an order that the copy be prepared and given to him on the next day. Hari Babu Vashisht also approached the accused for urgent need of the certified copy mentioned in the said application. The accused assured him that in case he pays Rs. 10/- as bribe, the work will be done. Hari Babu Vashisht agreed to pay the said amount on the next day.
( 4 ) IN the meantime Hari Babu Vashisht approached the Anti Corruption Branch at Tis Hazari Delhi and lodged the report. The case was marked to Pt. Chander Sain, Inspector. He recorded the statement, summoned two independant witnesses, completed the formalities of mixing the two currency notes of denomination of Rs. 5/-each with phenolphthalein powder and noted down their numbers. The complainant was sent along with the two witnesses to the Copying Agency. The panch witnesses were given clear instruction to remain near the complainant, to hear the talk and observe the passing of the currency notes to the accused. On reaching the office of the Copying Agency on the next date, the complainant asked the accused if the certified copy was ready. The accused then asked him if he had brought the money, to which he replied in the affirmative. The accused then directed Hari Babu to come inside. On reaching near him the accused said "give the money". The complainant took the notes and handed over the same to the accused. At that time one of the Panch witnesses was standing outside window No. 1 while the other was watching from outside window No. 2. Immediately after handing over the two notes to the accused, the complainant rubbed his hands and gave the required signal to Pt. Chander Sain, Inspector and the two witnesses. They immediately rushed to the spot and caught hold of the accused by his hand. The Inspector asked the accused if he had accepted the bribe from the complainant to which he replied in the affirmative. The inspector then arranged for a glass of water, got the hand of the accused in one of the chemical dipped and his pocket of the pant washed in the other glass. The solution turned pink. The
