1998 Supreme(Raj) 978
RAJASTHAN HIGH COURT
Mohd.Yamin, J.
Kanhaiyalal - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
SB Cr. Appeal No. 13 of 1980.
Decided On : 9-03-1998
For the Appellant:D. S. Sisodia, Sr. Advocate assisted by Manish Shishodia and Akhtar Khan, Advocates.
For the Respondent: Mrs. Chandra Lekha, Public Prosecutor.
The sanction for prosecution of a public servant under the Prevention of Corruption Act must be granted by the authority competent to remove the public servant from his office.
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(1)(D)(2) - SANCTION FOR PROSECUTION - VALIDITY - DEMAND OF BRIBE - EVIDENCE - SUFFICIENCY - TRAP CASE - EVIDENCE OF WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - DEFENCE OF ACCUSED - PROBABILITY.
Fact of the Case:
Accused-appellant Kanhaiyalal, a field man in the Office of Project Officer, was convicted and sentenced for offences under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The prosecution alleged that he demanded and accepted a bribe of Rs. 100/- from the complainant, Radhey Shyam, to sanction a subsidy for deepening a well. A trap was laid and the accused was caught red-handed.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the sanction for prosecution of the accused was not valid as it was granted by an authority who was not competent to remove the accused from his office. The court also found that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had demanded a bribe. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The defence of the accused that the money was inserted into his pocket without his knowledge was probabilised.
Issues: 1. Whether the sanction for prosecution of the accused was valid? 2. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused demanded a bribe? 3. Whether the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was reliable? 4. Whether the defence of the accused was probabilised?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the sanction for prosecution of the accused was not valid as it was granted by an authority who was not competent to remove the accused from his office. The court relied on Section 6 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, which provides that the sanction for prosecution must be granted by the authority competent to remove the accused from his office. 2. The court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the accused had demanded a bribe. The court found that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The court also found that there was no work pending with the accused and, therefore, he had no reason to demand a bribe. 3. The court held that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was contradictory and unreliable. The court found that the witnesses had given different versions of the incident and that their testimony was not corroborated by any independent evidence. 4. The court held that the defence of the accused that the money was inserted into his pocket without his knowledge was probabilised. The court found that the accused had given a consistent explanation of the incident and that his explanation was supported by the evidence.
Final Decision: The court allowed the appeal and acquitted the accused from the charges under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code and 5(1)(d)(2) read with 5(1)(c) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
JUDGMENT
1. - Accused appellant Kanhaiyalal has been convicted and sentenced to one year's rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months under Section 161 Indian Penal Code and to 11/2 years rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 1000/- and in default to further undergo three months rigorous imprisonment for offence under Section 5(1)(d)(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act by learned Special Judge, Anti-Corruption Cases, Udaipur on 31-12-1979. It was ordered that the sentences will run concurrently. He preferred this appeal against the said judgment of conviction and sentence.
2. Briefly stated, Radhey Shyam son of Laxmi Lal resident of Babrana Tehsil Kapasan District Chittorgarh came to Additional Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Udaipur who was holding camp at Kapasan on 18-3-78 and submitted report Ex. P/2 alleging that subsidy of Rs. 1,343/- was sanctioned in the name of his mother under the Dry Land Agriculture Development, Pilot Project for purchase of a water pump. Accused appellant Kanhaiyalal asked him to pay 10% as bribery. At the time of sanction, the complainant requested him not to charge the money and requested that since he was in dire need of money, he was not able to pay and later on after arranging he would pay. The FIR Ex. P/2 further stated that the well situated on the field of his mother was deepened and an application form to obtain subsidy was submitted to the Project Officer of Kapasan. The depth of the well was to be measured by the field man (accused appellant) and Assistant Engineer of the Office of Project Officer. On 16-3-78 Kanhaiyalal accused appellant demanded a sum of Rs. 100/- for himself and for the Assistant Engineer and assured that the depth of the well will be measured and then only subsidy for the purpose can be given. He threatened that in case the amount was not paid then the subsidy would not be given nor verification would be done. Since Radhey Shyam did not intend to bribe, he went to the Additional S. P. and submitted the report.
3. The Additional S. P. who was holding camp at Kapasan Dak Bungalow, read over the report to complainant and he accepted it to be true. The complainant desired that the accused appellant may be caught red handed. He submitted currency notes worth Rs. 100/-. Then Daya Shankar Head Constable was sent to procure two independent witnesses. Khattumal was brought by Daya Shankar. Roshanlal was already present. Currency notes which were 8 in number were signed by the Additional S. P. The complainant told to the Additional S. P. that the accused appellant would accept the amount in Kapasan at Shrinath Jalpan Graha in the evening. The Additional S. P. then demonstrated the use of phenolphthalein powder to the complainant and the witnesses. The witnesses were instructed to see the passing of money to the accused appellant. Phenolphthalein powder was sprinkled on the currency notes and then they were handed over to the complainant who was asked to hand over the same to the field man or Assistant Engineer on demand. The complainant was instructed that he may give a signal after payment by keeping his right hand on his head so that the trap may be laid. Then all these persons left the Dak Bungalow. Thereafter Shankar the Head Constable, Jawahar Lal L.D.C., Bhanwarlal and Babulal went from Dak Bungalow towards bus stand of Kapasan in Jeep No. RSG-1514 which was being driven by Ram Singh Driver. Shrinath Jalpan Graha is situated at Bus Stand. The jeep was stopped and the driver was instructed that he should lie beneath the jeep pretending that the jeep required some repairs. The Additional S. P. and Sub-Inspector Amar Singh went into the hotel as customers where they took some edibles. At about 8.45 p.m. accused appellant Kanhaiyalal and Mahaveer Mahatma, cashier entered into the hotel along with Radhey Shyam. All of them entertained themselves with tea. At that time Radhey Shyam and Khattu
Click Here to Read the rest of this document