SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Ranganath Misra and M.M. Dutt, JJ.
Bal Krishan Sayal - Petitioner
Versus
State of Punjab - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 1977.
Decided On : 28 January, 1987
Corruption - Bribery - Failure to Establish Case Beyond Reasonable Doubt
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a clerk in the railway establishment, was convicted under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code for demanding a bribe from an individual to obtain an order of waiver of penal rent. A trap was arranged, and the bribe was recovered, but the appellant denied the allegations.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court upheld the convictions and sentences, but the Supreme Court found the prosecution evidence unsatisfactory in establishing the conversation preceding the passing of the currency notes and the likelihood of additional demand. As a result, the appellant was acquitted due to the failure of the prosecution to establish the case beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt, the circumstances of the bribe demand, and the credibility of the prosecution witnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The prosecution must establish the case beyond reasonable doubt, and in cases of bribery, the circumstances and evidence surrounding the alleged bribe demand must be clear and credible.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the convictions and sentences of the appellant were set aside.
Ranganath Misra, J. - This appeal is by special leave and the affirming judgment of the Punjab and Haryana High Court upholding the convictions and sentences of the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Penal Code is sought to be set aside.
2. The appellant was a clerk in the Personnel Branch of the Divisional Superintendent, Northern Railway at Firozpur. One Gurcharan Ram, a fitter in the railway establishment had become liable to penal rent in respect of the official residence occupied by him. The prosecution alleged that the appellant demanded a bribe of Rs. 100/- from Gurcharan Ram to obtain an order of waiver of the penal rent. Gurcharan Ram pleaded that he was not in a position to pay the amount demanded and it was ultimately settled that the sum of Rs. 100/- would be paid in five instalments of Rs. 20/- each. With reference to the payment of the first instalment a trap was arranged and soon after the bribe of Rs. 20/- had been received, the trap party recovered the amount. The defence was one of total denial.
3. Two outsider witnesses had been examined in the case being Khazan Singh and Ram Chander in support of the case. Khazan Singh, as noticed by the High Court, did not speak as to what transpired in the conversation between the bribe giver and the appellant. The other witness too was not very clear as to what talk preceded the passing of the two currency notes. The High Court took the view that even if the prosecution had not indicated what exactly the conversation was, once the passing of the two currency notes was accepted it was for the appellant to explain the circumstances under which the same had been received. Another contention which had been raised before the High Court was that the total penal rent due from Gurcharan Ram was Rs. 102/- and to obtain waiver of this it was unlikely that Gurcharan would have agreed to pay a sum of Rs. 100/- as bribe. We, wanted to find out exactly how much of penal rent was due and, therefore, sent for the record. From the record it is apparent that the demand was of Rs. 102/- which Gurcharan Ram wanted to be waived. There is no material to show whether there was likelihood of any additional demand to be raised against him. Taking the unsatisfactory character of the prosecution evidence in regard to the conversation preceding the passing of the currency notes and the feature that for waiver of Rs. 102/-, the bribe of Rs. 100/- was offered, we are inclined to take the view that the prosecution has failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to this benefit of this situation. The appeal is allowed and the convictions and the sentences are set aside.
Appeal allowed.
AI
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.