Back
Rajasthan High Court
Modi, J.
Ramprasad - Appellant
Versus
State - Respondents
S.B. Criminal Appeal No. 62 of 1955
Decided On : November 17, 1953
A charge under Sec. 161 is one which is easily, and may often be lightly made, but is in the very nature of things difficult to establish, as direct evidence must in most cases be meager and of a tainted nature. These considerations cannot, however, be suffered to relieve the prosecution of any part of the burden which rests upon it to establish the charge beyond reasonable doubt. If, after everything that can legitimately be considered has been given its due weight, room still exists for taking the view that however strong the suspicion raised against the accused every reasonable possibility of innocence has not been excluded, he is entitled to an acquittal.
The language of sec. 161 of the Indian Penal Code clearly shows that in order to bring home the charge of bribery against a public servant, it is essential to prove that there is (1) acceptance of or attempt to obtain a gratification and (2) as a motive or reward for doing or forbearing to do any official act or for showing or forbearing to show any favour or disfavour in the exercise of his official functions. It is not the mere receipt of gratification which completes the offence under that sec. but the gratification must have been given as a motive or reward to do any official act.
In order to put a curb on corruption, what the legislature thought fit was by means of sec. 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act to dispense with the second ingredient stated above. In other words, where gratification was proved to have passed to the accused, then it would not be further necessary for the prosecution to establish that the gratification was given as a motive or reward for accomplishing one of the objects mentioned in sec. 161 I.P.C. But it is entirely wrong to think that sec. 4 also dispenses with the necessity to prove oh the part of the prosecution that gratification or some valuable thing, as such, proceeding from the complainant to the accused. The burden of proving that even now rests on the prosecution under sec. 4 of the said Act as under Sec. 161 I.P.C. The moment, however, when the prosecution proves that the accused accepted or agreed to accept any gratification, the presumption will be raised against him that he received it as a motive or reward for exercising any official favour or disfavour and if the accused wants to suggest to the contrary it would be for him to establish that such was not the case.
Cases of bribery are difficult to establish, but where they are so established, a substantial sentence of substantive imprisonment must be passed in order to check corruption in an effective manner.
Where the case was proved against the accused, the consideration that the accused would be dismissed, and that he would entail the forfeiture of certain service benefits altogether irrelevant for the purpose of awarding a proper sentence, (Paras 12, 13 & 14)
2. The case for the prosecution is as follows. The accused Ramprasad was a Naib Tehsildar at Lalgarh, District, Ganganagar, and had his headquarters at Ganganagar. The complainant Kapoor Singh applied to purchased some land near his house but, as he put it, he was unable to get it, as he was not willing to bribe this Naib Tehsildar as also his predecessors before whom the matter was pending. The accused went to Lalgarh on 15.12.52, and sent for Kapoor Singh and told him that he should pay a sum of Rs. 200/-and five maunds of wheat to the accused otherwise the land would be put to auction and the complainant may not by able to get it for even a sum of Rs. 1,000/-. Kapoor Singh expressed his inability to pay at that and eventually the deal was settled for Rs. 200/-only, and he offered to give that sum to the accused at Ganganagar on the third day, that is, the 17th December, 1955 The accused left Lalgarh. Kapoor Singh released this story to one Bahadur who was Secretary of the Tehsil Congress Committee, Ganganagar. Both arranged that they would go to Ganganagar together and so they did on the 17th December, 1952. Bahadur wrote an application, Ex.P.1., dated 17.12.52 to the Zila, Congress Committee, Ganganagar, on behalf of Kapoor Singh, in which he complained that the accused was askin for a bribe as a condition for the acceptance of Kapoor Singhs application, and although he abhorred bribery he was willing to offer a bribe of Rs 200/-to the accused if the money so given were to be arranged to recovered from him through the police, and in the presence of some officer, so that the accused be punished and a lesson administered to such bribe-takers. This application was delivered to Gyaniram who was Secretary of the Zila Congress Committee, Ganganagar, and he forwarded it to Ranjeet Singh who happened to be the Secretary of the City Congress Committee, Ganganagar, with the remark that there was a general complaint against the accused and that it was necessary in the public interest that adequate action be taken against him. This having been done, the complainant went to the house of the accused. On his being asked whether he had brought the money, he told the accused that he would presently give the latter a sum of Rs. 200/- at Ganganagar but send the wheat from Lalgarh latter. The accused said that he would be at his house for another two hours. Kapoor Singh then went to the shop of Surajmal Banshidhar, and took a loan of Rs. 200/- in ten-rupee notes. It is said that Kapoor Singh again met Bahadur on the way and then they both went to Kachehri where they met Ranjeet Singh. The latter wrote an application on behalf of Kapoor Singh to the District Magistrate, Ganganagar, requesting him to sign two hundred-rupee notes, Nos, 954393 and 030262, which were intended to be given to the accused as bribe and make arrangements for a trap to catch the accused. Gyaniram and Ranjeet Singh, along with Bahadur, who however, remained outside the District Magistrates room, saw the District Magistrate Mr. Arora, The latter initialled the notes and gave them over to Gyaniram and Ranjeet Singh. The District Magistrate asked Mr. R.C. Oza, Extra First Class Magistrate Ganganagar, to be present at the time of the search of the accused, which was directed to be made by the Deputy Superintendent of Police. Mr. Dixit, Bahadur then asked Kapoor Singh to see if the accused was in his room, and so to, to contact him. Kapoor Singh, finding that the accused was in his room, asked him whether he should give the money to the accused at his house or in the office. Thereupon, it is said, the accused handed him over an envelop Ex. P. 3 (this is an inland letter in Urdu, which was received by the accused from his nephew who was at Delhi, urgently asking him for money) and said that Kapoo
SupremeToday
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
