SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

1956 Supreme(All) 156

IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Oak, J.
RANJIT SINGH - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
. . Of .
Decided On : 08/30/1956

Headnote:

BRIBERY - SECTION 4, PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SCOPE AND APPLICABILITY - PRESUMPTION OF MOTIVE OR REWARD - BURDEN OF PROOF ON PROSECUTION - ACCEPTANCE OF GRATIFICATION FOR ANOTHER PERSON - UNCONSCIOUS OR UNKNOWING TRANSMITTER OR BEARER NOT WITHIN SECTION 4.

Fact of the Case:

Two individuals, Ranjit Singh and Pratap Singh, were convicted under Section 161, IPC, and Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, for accepting bribes as public servants. The prosecution alleged that they received money from a Mukhtar-am, Badri Dayal, to issue irrigation slips. The accused denied receiving any bribe and offered explanations for the money found in their possession.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused received money as a bribe or illegal gratification. The court noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's case and found the explanations offered by the accused to be plausible.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution proved that the accused received money as a bribe or illegal gratification. 2. Whether the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, applies in this case.

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the accused received money as a bribe or illegal gratification. The court found that the Mukhtar-am, Badri Dayal, was an unreliable witness and that his testimony was not corroborated by other evidence. 2. The court held that the presumption under Section 4 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, does not apply in this case because the prosecution failed to prove that the accused accepted or obtained any gratification other than legal remuneration.

Final Decision: The court allowed the appeals and acquitted Ranjit Singh and Pratap Singh of the charges under Section 161, IPC, and Section 5 of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.

OAK, J.

( 1 ) THESE two connected appeals have been filed by two persons, Ranjit Singh and Pratap Singh, who have been convicted by the learned Special Judge, Hamirpur at Orai under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1047. Ranjit Singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years and a fine of Rs. 200/- under Section 161, I. P. C. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for two years under Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act. Pratap singh has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year and a fine of Rs. 100/- under Section 101, I. P. C. He has been sentenced to imprisonment for one year under Section 5, Prevention of corruption Act. The sentences passed upon each accused have been ordered to run concurrently.

( 2 ) ACCORDING to the prosecution, Ajodhya Prasad Dube had Sir and Kliudkasht land in village gaor. His Mukhtaram Badri Dayal used to look alter this cultivation, Ranjit Singh was the canal amin, and Pratap Singh was the canal Patrol in this circle. On 27-3-1953 Badri Dayal approached Pratap Singh Patrol for irrigation slips in Ajodhya Prasads name. There was a dispute between Ajodhya Prasad and certain Chamars about possession over the land in village gaor. Pratap Singh Patrol informed Badri Dayal that, Chamars were willing to pay Rs. 400/. Pratap Singh inquired from Badri Dayal as to how much he was prepared to pay to obtain irrigation slips in Ajodhya Prasads name. At first Badri Dayal was unwilling to pay anything as a bribe. Pratap Singh suggested to Badri Dayal that he might pay Rs. 200/- to obtain the necessary irrigation slips. Badri Dayal replied that he would give his final answer after consulting his master Ajodhya Prasad. Badri Dayal informed Ajodhya Prasad about the demand made by Pratap Singh Patrol for the bribe. Ajodhya Prasad conveyed the information to the district Magistrate and the Executive Engineer The District Magistrate directed that a trap should be laid for catching the Amin and the canal Patrol. Sri Ram Chandra Sharma, S. D. M. Jalaun, was ordered to lay a trap. Ajodhya Prasad produced Rs. 250 in ten-rupee notes. These 25 currency notes were marked and initialled by the Magistrate, Sri Rani Chandra Sharma. The notes were then returned to Ajodhya Prasad.

( 3 ) ON 28-3-1953 Ajodhya Prasad and Badri Dayal went to village Narainpura, where the Amin and the Patrol were working. Eadri Dayul paid Ranjit Singh Amin Rs. 175 in currency notes. Badri Dayal paid a sum of Rs. 15 to Pratap Singh canal Patrol, After a few minutes Sri Ram chandra Sharma Magistrate appeared at the place where the two accused were working. The magistrate searched the persons of the two accused. A sum of Rs. 175 was recovered from Ranjit singhs possession. A good deal of money including Rs. 15 received as bribe was recovered from pratap Singhs possession. After investigation the two accused were prosecuted under Section 161, I. P. C. and Section 5, Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 for bribery and criminal misconduct in the discharge of duty as public servants.

( 4 ) BOTH the accused pleaded not guilty. The two accused denied having received any money from bndri Dayal as a bribe. The two accused, however, admitted the recovery of money from their possession. The two accused gave different explanations about the possession of the money. The explanation offered by Ranjit Singh Amin was that, one Abdul Shakur was working as Amin in this circle before Ranjit Singh came to this place. Badri Dayal requested Ranjit Singh accused to carry a sum of money to Abdul Shakur Amin. At First Ranjit Singh accused was unwilling to accept the money offered by Badri Dayal. But when Badri Dayal insisted, Ranjit Singh accused took the money. The explanation offered by Pratap Singh accused was that, Badri Dayal gave him a note saying that Dube Ji had given the money as Faslana. Pratap Singh accused refused to take the money. But Badri Dayal insisted, saying that if the accused did not want the money, the accused c




















Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top