Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
R. K. Chowdhary, J.
PADAM SEN - Appellant
Versus
STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1154 Of 1956
Decided On : 10/27/1958
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 165A, P. C. - ABETMENT OF BRIBERY - COMMISSIONER APPOINTED BY COURT TO SEIZE BOOKS OF ACCOUNT - WHETHER A PUBLIC SERVANT - WHETHER OFFENCE MADE OUT - INTERPRETATION OF SECTION 165A, P. C. - WHETHER MONEY HAD ACTUALLY PASSED - WHETHER COMMISSIONER WAS A PUBLIC SERVANT.
Fact of the Case:
Appellants, Padam Sen and Shekhar Chand, were convicted under Section 165A, P. C. for abetment of bribery. They allegedly offered a bribe to a Commissioner appointed by the Court to seize the books of account of the plaintiff in a civil litigation. The appellants contended that the Commissioner was not a public servant and that the offence was not made out since money had not actually passed.
Finding of the Court:
The Court held that the Commissioner was a public servant as he was an officer of the Court of Justice whose duty it was to take charge of property or to execute any judicial process. The Court also held that the offence was made out even though money had not actually passed, as the appellants had instigated the Commissioner to commit the offence by offering him a bribe.
Issues: 1. Whether the Commissioner was a public servant within the meaning of Section 21, P. C.? 2. Whether the offence under Section 165A, P. C. was made out even though money had not actually passed?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the Commissioner was a public servant as he was an officer of the Court of Justice whose duty it was to take charge of property or to execute any judicial process. The Court relied on the fourth clause of Section 21, P. C., which defines a public servant as "every officer of a Court of Justice whose duty it is, as such officer, to take charge of property or to execute any judicial process". 2. The Court held that the offence under Section 165A, P. C. was made out even though money had not actually passed, as the appellants had instigated the Commissioner to commit the offence by offering him a bribe. The Court relied on the wording of Section 165A, P. C., which penalises abetment of the offence punishable under Section 161 or Section 165 "whether or not that offence is committed in consequence of the abetment".
Final Decision: The Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellants.
( 1 ) THIS is an appeal by Padam Sen and Shekhar Chand of Hilwai within police station Baraut in the district of Meerut against the judgment and order of the learned Special Judge of Meerut sentencing each of them 10 rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and Rs. 500/- fine, with further and months rigorous imprisonment in default of payment of the fine, under Section 165a,. P. C.
( 2 ) SHEKHAR Chand appellants father Genda Mal sued Mithan Lal P. W. 9 and the latters brothers for money on pronotes. The Additional Munsif of Ghaziabad passed judgment on 28-7-1954, holding that the defendants had paid Rs. 7049/10/6 on the pronotes instead of the mere Rs. 4050/- admitted by the plaintiff. The offence for which the appellants have been convicted has been found by the court below to have been committed by the appellants during the pendency of that civil litigation.
( 3 ) APPREHENDING that the plaintiff will fabricate his books of account in order to thwart the defence plea of payment over and above that admitted by the plaintiff, the defendants applied to the Munsif for seizure of the books. The Munsif appointed a lawyer, Sri Raghubir Prasad P. W. 4, Commissioner to seize the plaintiffs books of account. In execution of the commission, the lawyer seized the books at Hilwai on 28-3-1954 and brought them to Ghaziabad. According to the prosecution, the appellants committed the offence on 29-3-1954 while the books of account were still with the Commissioner. Shekhar Chand as the plaintiffs son and Padam Sen as shekhar Chands friend are said to have offered bribe to the Commissioner to allow them to change the relevant account book.
( 4 ) THE prosecution case as to how the appellants attempted to bribe the lawyer Commissioner and were caught was as follows. The appellants made offers of bribe thrice on 29-3-1954. at 7. 30 a. m. at the lawyers house, at 1 p. m. at the lawyers seat in the court compound and again at his house at about 5. 30 p. m. On the last occasion they first offered Rs. 600/-, then Rs. 700/-, then rs. 800/-and finally Rs. 900/ -. Sri Raghubir Prasad did not comply with their request and, at the and of their last unsuccessful overture, asked then, to see him again the next morning. At 8 oclock the same night the lawyer went and reported the matter to the Munsif, Sri S. P. Sharma p. W. 1. The Munsif wrote a D. O. Ex, P 1 to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate Sri Jamuna Shankar P. W. 5, which the lawyer delivered at 9 p. m. The Magistrate asked the lawyer to come again next morning. Accordingly, at about 6. 30 a. m. on 30-3-1954 the lawyer again went to the Magistrate. The Magistrate got the lawyer to write a report on the matter which is Ex. P2. The Magistrate endorsed on it orders to the Sub-Registrar Magistrate Sri Krishna Murari P. W. 2 and to the station Officer of P. S. Ghaziabad S.. Sri Narain Sharma P. W. 10 directing them to lay a trap for the accused. The lawyer communicated the orders to the Sub-Registrar Magistrate and the station Officer, and all three then went to the lawyers house, picking up two witnesses Mangat ram P. W. 3 and Ram Chand P. W. 6, on the way.
( 5 ) THE lawyer took his seat in his office room and the other tour concealed themselves in an adjacent room, leaving the intervening door ajar. About 20 minutes later the appellants arrived. Shekhar Chand reiterated his request to the lawyer and told him that they had brought the money. The lawyer asked them to produce the money whereupon, on being so required by shekhar Chand Padam Sen took out Rs. 900/- in currency notes, counted them and offered them to the lawyer. Just at that nick of time, in response to a pre-arranged signal given by the lawyer, the four men who were lying in wait in the adjoining room entered the office room, the S. R. Magistrate seized the currency notes from the out-stretched hand of Padam Sen and the police officer arrested Padam Sen and Shekhar Chand. The Sub-Registrar Magistrate drew up the recovery memo Ex. P5, w
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
