Hari Narayan vs State of Rajasthan - 2023 Supreme(Raj) 1692

Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2023 Supreme(Raj) 1692

IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN BENCH AT JAIPUR
NARENDRA SINGH DHADDHA, J.
Hari Narayan - Appellant
Versus
State of Rajasthan - Respondent
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 78 of 1985
Decided On : 13-02-2023

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Mr. Mahesh Gupta, Mr. S. S. Sharma, Ms. Priyanshi Katta.
For the Respondent: Mr. Chandragupt Chopra, PP.

Headnote:(A) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - Sections 5(1)(d) and 5(2) - Indian Penal Code - Section 161 - Conviction of appellant for accepting bribe - Prosecution failed to establish demand and acceptance of bribe although recovery of money was made - Trial court's conviction set aside due to evidentiary gaps. (Paras 11 and 12)

(B) Burden of Proof - It is the prosecution's burden to establish every element of the crime, including the demand for bribe, which was not met in this case. (Para 11)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of demanding a bribe from a complainant regarding tractor registration. The prosecution presented witnesses and evidence; however, inconsistencies were noted.

Findings of Court:
The trial court's conviction lacked sufficient evidence of demand and acceptance of bribe; therefore, it was deemed incorrect and set aside.

Issues: The court addressed whether there was credible evidence proving the demand for a bribe by the appellant.

Ratio Decidendi: The court concluded that merely recovering money does not establish bribery without proof of demand and acceptance, hence vacating the conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed; the appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. conviction and sentencing process outlined. (Para 1 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. defense arguments against conviction. (Para 7)
3. prosecution opposition and court consideration. (Para 9 , 10)
4. court's reasoning for appellant's acquittal. (Para 11)
5. appeal allowed; judgment set aside. (Para 12 , 13)

ORDER :

Narendra Singh Dhaddha, J.

Appellant has filed this appeal challenging the judgment & order dated 28.01.1985/02.02.1985 passed by learned Special Judge, A.C.D. Cases, Jaipur in Criminal Case No. 5/1980, whereby appellant was convicted and sentenced for the offence(s) punishable under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1)(d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 as under:—

u/s 161 IPC	Three months simple imprisonment.
u/s 5(1) (d) r/w Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947	Three months simple imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,00/-, in default of payment of fine to undergo one month simple imprisonment.

2. Both the sentences were ordered to run concurrently.

3. As per story of the prosecution, Sultanaram resident of Dhani Rajwali Tehsil Neem Ka Thana, submitted a written report to the Dy. S.P. A.C.D. Sikar alleging that he had purchased the tractor HMT Jeeter in his father's name on 02.05.1979 and he wanted to change the registration of tractor. He submitted the documents before D.T.O. and D.T.O. wrote an order and sent to Hari Narain clerk. When he went to Hari Narain, he told him that there was no work with him to be done. The D.T.O. would do. Then again he went to Moolchand D.T.O. but Moolchand said that Hari Narain would do it. Then he again went to Hari Narain and the appellant Hari Narain told him that the complainant will have to pay Rs.150/- (Rs.50/- for himself, Rs.50/- for Ashok Jain and Rs.50/- for Moolchand D.T.O.). The complainant did not want to give the bribe. So, he complained before the ACD. After completion of trap proceedings and investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant.

4. After hearing the arguments, charges were framed against the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

5. Accused appellant denied the charges levelled against him and claimed for trial.

6. In order to prove its case, prosecution examined 12 witnesses. Appellant was examined under Section 313 CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE , 1973. He prayed that he was innocent and had been falsely implicated in this case. Appellant examined 5 witnesses in his defence.

7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial court wrongly convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and Sections 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that learned trial court had not read the prosecution evidence in right perspective. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that prosecution witnesses are highly interested, so, their evidence was unreliable. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that prosecution failed to prove the demand and acceptance of bribe because evidence of the complainant Sutanaram was contradictory and he had also submitted the affidavit. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that Investigating Officer wrongly investigated the case and left the Moolchand and Ashok Jain. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that trial court wrongly framed the charges against the appellant because as per the averments of the prosecution, appellant had taken Rs.50/- for Ashok Jain and Rs.50/- for Moolchand but charges framed against him were without mentioning of these facts. Learned counsel for the appellant also submits that there is no evidence that appellant had ever demanded rupees from Sultanaram. So, appellant be acquitted.

8. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment passed by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of P. Satyanarayana Murthy v. Distric

Click Here to Read the rest of this document