In cases of conspiracy, the statements of co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible as evidence against each other under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.

Headnote:
In a case involving allegations of conspiracy and bribery, the court examined the evidence presented by the prosecution and defense to determine the guilt of the accused. The court considered the statements of the accused recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), which are admissible against the accused but not against co-accused, except in cases of conspiracy. The court found that the statements of the co-accused, Bal Shankar, could be considered against the main accused, Birdhi Chand, due to the allegation of conspiracy. The court analyzed the testimony of government officials, traders, and other witnesses to establish the sequence of events and the involvement of the accused. The court also considered the entries in account books and other documents to corroborate the allegations. The court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established the guilt of Birdhi Chand under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, but acquitted Bal Shankar due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case against him.
Fact of the Case:

On May 1, 1981, a team led by Birdhi Chand, a District Supply Officer (DSO), conducted a raid on shops in Krishi Upaj Mandi, Malakhera. The raid resulted in the seizure of records and the sealing of shops. The traders alleged that the DSO demanded a bribe to settle the matter. On May 2, the DSO and his team returned to Malakhera and allegedly threatened the traders with strict action under a new law. The traders eventually agreed to pay a bribe of Rs. 8,500, of which Rs. 7,200 was paid on the spot. The remaining Rs. 1,300 was to be paid later. On May 11, the traders filed a complaint with the Special Inspector General of Police (A.C.D.) alleging bribery and harassment by the DSO. On May 12, Rameshwar Lal and Shri Ram, two of the traders, went to the DSO's residence and allegedly paid him the remaining Rs. 1,300. The DSO was arrested, and Rs. 1,300 was recovered from his possession.
Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of conspiracy between Birdhi Chand and Bal Shankar, an Enforcement Officer, to demand and accept illegal gratification from the traders. The court relied on the statements of the traders, the seizure of records, the sealing of shops, and the payment of bribes to conclude that the accused had conspired to commit the offenses. The court also found that Birdhi Chand had accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,300 on May 12, which was corroborated by the recovery of the money from his possession.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had established a prima facie case of conspiracy between Birdhi Chand and Bal Shankar to demand and accept illegal gratification from the traders. 2. Whether Birdhi Chand had accepted the bribe of Rs. 1,300 on May 12.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the statements of the co-accused, Bal Shankar, could be considered against the main accused, Birdhi Chand, due to the allegation of conspiracy. The court relied on Section 10 of the Evidence Act, which allows for the admission of statements made by co-conspirators in furtherance of the conspiracy as evidence against each other. 2. The court found that the prosecution had established a prima facie case of conspiracy based on the evidence of the traders, the seizure of records, the sealing of shops, and the payment of bribes. The court concluded that the accused had conspired to commit the offenses.
Final Decision: The court convicted Birdhi Chand under Sections 161 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and 5(1)(d) read with 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court acquitted Bal Shankar due to inconsistencies in the prosecution's case against him.

JUDGMENT

1. - Appellants Birdhi Cband and Bal Shankar have preferred these appeals against their conviction and sentence imposed by the learned Special Judge (A.C.D.) Cases, Jaipur, vide his judgment dated, 1st October, 1986.

2. Prosecution story unfolded during the trial is that Rameshwar Dayal, P.W. 2 and Shri Ram P.W. 4 submitted written report Ex. P. 2, before Special Inspector General of Police (A.C.D.) Cases, Rajasthan Jaipur, on 11th May, 1981.

3. PW 2, Rameshwar Dayal and PW 4, Shri Ram submitted that they arc residents of Village Malakhera District Alwar and are doing business in food grains in Krishi Upaj Mandi Malakhera, It was also submitted that Shri Ram is doing business in the name and style of M/s Shiv Dayal Ram Niwas and Situ Ram Mangi Lal It will not be out of place here to mention that in all there were 16 shops of grain dealers in the Mandi and all of them had licence from Krishi Upaj Mandi and Supplies Department. Firm of Sita Ram Mangi Lal was not in the Krishi Upaj Mandi, but, it was in the Gandhi Chowk of Village Malakhera which is at a distance of about 1 K.M. On 28th April 1981, vide Ex. D. 1 a complaint was lodged before the Collector by a petty dealer against Shiv Dayal. It was submitted to the Collector that the Enforcement Staff of the Supply Department is taking false and frivolous actions against the petty dealers- It was also submitted that Shiv Dayal is the Sarpanch of the village and no action is being taken against him It will not be out of place here to mention that Shiv Dayal happens to be one of the big guns, politically as well as commercially of the village Collector passed the order Ex. D. 1 on 29th April, 1981 and directed the D. S. O to submit the report.

4. The case of the appellant Birdhi Chand is that on 1st May 1981, he alongwith the Enforement Staff namely, Bal Shankar, Virria Kumar and Harish Chandra reached Malakhera Mandi in Jeep at about 4 to 5 PM, It is further alleged that on 1st May 1981 they started checking of the firm namely, M/s. Shiv Dayal Surajbhan and M/s Shiv Daval Ram Niwas. There is further allegation that the terror was created by them and they sealed the record of the aforesaid firms took in possession without giving any receipt and preparing any seizure memo The case of the prosecution is that when the deasers asked for the receipt the D.S.O. refused the issuance of any receipt or the preparation of the seizure memo There is a further allegation that the appellant Bal Shankar told the dealers while leaving the Mandi to reach Alwar for settlement with the District Supply Officer. Businessmen, however, did not accept the advice so given by Bal Shankar.

5. On 2nd May 1988 at about 10 AM, Birdhi Chand DSO., alongwith the staff again reached Mandi Malakhera. He started checking of these shops. Other shops were also sealed. There is further allegation that threat was given to the dealers about the amendment of the law and they were told that without showing any reason they can be detained behind the bars for a period of three months. There is an allegation that Rs, 10,000/- were demanded by the appellant Birdhi Chand from the dealers of the Mandi. However, the settlement was made between the parties for a sum of Rs. 8,500/-. There is a further allegation that the amount was collected by the dealers and immediately Rs, 7,200/- were paid to Birdhi Chand under the settlement so arrived at. A promise was also made that Rs 1,300/- will be paid to him at the earliest. There is an allegation that after the settlement and payment of Rs 7,200/- seals of all the shops were removed and all the dealers were exonerated to a great extent It is also the case of the parties that the raiding party which was headed by Birdhi Chand, DSO, left Malakhera and returned all the documents which were seized.

6. The second part of the case starts on 11th May 1981. It is alleged that Birdhi Chand retained one Bahi of Sita Ram Mangi Lal with him on the ground that he will retain this Bahi till the

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

Judicial Analysis

1988 Supreme(Raj) 503

In cases of conspiracy, the statements of co-conspirators made in furtherance of the conspiracy are admissible as evidence against each other under Section 10 of the Evidence Act.

Cases Referred (2)

Judicial Analysis