Back
1956 Supreme(All) 211
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
A. N. Mulla, J.
LAURIE E.JACOBS - Appellant
Versus
UNION OF INDIA (UOI) - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 162 Of 1954
Decided On : 11/28/1956
IQBAL AHMED, P.N.CHAUDHURY
Headnote:
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(2) - SANCTION - JURISDICTION - SENTENCE - PUBLIC SERVANT - OFFENCE - SANCTIONING AUTHORITY - BRAKE ON COURSE OF GENERAL LAW - IRREGULARITY - ILLEGALITY - CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - SECTION 230 - CHARGE - FACTS - PENAL SECTION - LABEL - OFFENCE STATED - NEW OR ALTERED CHARGE - PREVIOUS SANCTION - JURISDICTION OF COURT - TRIAL - CONVICTION - PUNISHMENT - GRAVER OFFENCE - MINOR OFFENCE - SECTION 193, 194, 195 TO 199, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - FALSE EVIDENCE - JUDICIAL PROCEEDING - TRANSPORTATION FOR LIFE - SEVEN YEARS IMPRISONMENT - COMPLAINT - COURT - PREAMBLE OF PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT (ACT II OF 1947).
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a shed-man in the Loco Shed, Jhansi, was convicted under Section 161, Penal Code, and sentenced to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months, for demanding and accepting illegal gratification from laborers for securing employment.
Finding of the Court:
The prosecution story was proved by oral and documentary evidence. The appellant's defense that the money was planted in his pocket by a decoy witness was rejected. The appellant's conduct, including his attempt to chew a paper on which the names of the laborers were written, indicated his guilt. The trial court had jurisdiction to try the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though the sanctioning authority had only sanctioned prosecution under Section 161, Penal Code. The sentence of imprisonment was excessive and was set aside, but the fine was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution story was proved beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the appellant's defense that the money was planted in his pocket was credible? 3. Whether the trial court had jurisdiction to try the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though the sanctioning authority had only sanctioned prosecution under Section 161, Penal Code? 4. Whether the sentence of imprisonment was excessive?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The prosecution story was proved beyond reasonable doubt by oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of six laborers, the decoy witness, and the Magistrate who supervised the trap. The appellant's conduct, including his attempt to chew a paper on which the names of the laborers were written, indicated his guilt. 2. The appellant's defense that the money was planted in his pocket by a decoy witness was rejected as incredible. The appellant's spontaneous exclamation when he was challenged, his attempt to chew a paper on which the names of the laborers were written, and the fact that the money was found in his pocket all indicated that he was guilty. 3. The trial court had jurisdiction to try the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, even though the sanctioning authority had only sanctioned prosecution under Section 161, Penal Code. The rule of sanction only requires that the sanctioning authority should remove the brake placed on the normal course of law after due consideration of all the relevant facts. It does not and cannot expect a departmental head to be an expert in criminal law and to determine with certainty as to which label will appropriately cover the offence committed by an offender. 4. The sentence of imprisonment was excessive and was set aside, but the fine was increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. The appellant had already lost his job and had incurred a huge expenditure in defending himself. The major part of the illegal gratification collected by the appellant would have gone to other pockets.
Final Decision: Appeal dismissed with modification. Sentence of imprisonment set aside. Fine increased from Rs. 500/- to Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine, appellant to undergo one year's rigorous imprisonment.
A. N. MULLA, J.
( 1 ) APPELLANT Laurie S. Jacobs was tried under Section 161,. P. Code and Section 5 (2) of the prevention of Corruption Act (Act II of 1947 ). The trial Court convicted him under Section 161,. P. Code and sentenced him to two years rigorous imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/-, in default further rigorous imprisonment for six months. It passed no orders in respect of the offence under Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act. Against this order of conviction the appellant has come up in appeal.
( 2 ) THE prosecution story is that the appellant was employed as shed-man in the Loco Shed, jhansi in the year 1950. A temporary gang of labourers was recruited in October, 1950 to do some emergent work. The Divisional Superintendent had written to Sri R. A. Hassett (D. W. 2), who was the Running-shed Foreman at Jhansi at that time to recruit this gang. Sri Hassett asked the appellant to carry out the orders of the Divisional Superintendent and engage the casual labour in consultation with the Senior Inspector Fuel, but the appellant did not observe this direction and made the recruitment himself. This temporary gang of labour operated from the 4th of October, 1950 upto the 31st of October, 1950. Sixteen labourers were recruited and they worked under a permanent hand Rameshwar Prasad (P-W. 12 ). Dilawar (P. W. 11) was the Muqaddam of this gang. It is alleged that on the 24th of october, 1950 the appellant ordered this gang to collect in the railway yard and he told them that if they pay Rs. 50/- each as illegal gratification for the Bara Sahib, then an employment card would be issued to them and a permanent employment would be secured for them. The appellant promised to recommend their cases to the officers concerned, if such a payment was made. Eara sahib was the name by which the labourers called Sri Hassett, the Loco Foreman. The labourers agreed to pay this amount alter they received their wages.
( 3 ) ON the next day the appellant again came to the labourers with the Employment Officer, Mr. Ward (D. W. 3) and the same demand was made in his presence. The labourers again made the same promise and the appellant wanted some one to stand surety for them. Rameshwar Prasad (P. W. 12), then stood surety for the labourers. After this Sri Ward issued the employment exchange cards. The appellant asked Rameshwar Prasad to collect these cards and to give them back to the labourers after the payment was made by them.
( 4 ) THE same evening Rameshwar Prasad went to the house of Sri Bhusaran Sharma, R. S. O. in order to inform him. He, however, did not meet Sri Bhusaran Sharma, but his father met him. He left words with Sri Sharmas father and came back.
( 5 ) THE next important date in this case is the 31st of October, 1950. On that date Inspector Lal charid of the Special Police Establishment (P. W. 13) accidentally visited Jhansi and met the father of Sri Bhusaran Sharma, who conveyed this information to him. Sri Lal Chand then immediately called Rameshwar Prasad and recorded his statement. Ho then contacted the District authorities so that a trap should be laid. On that very date the services of this gang were terminated and they were directed to come to the Loco-shod next morning to take their wages.
( 6 ) NEXT morning the labourers with Rameshwar Prasad (P. W. 12) and Dilawar Ali (P. W. 11) went to the railway station to receive their wages. It is alleged that the payment could not be made in the forenoon and the wages were actually paid in the afternoon. The labourers along with Rameshwar Prasad and Dilawar Ali waited in the garden outside the railway station.
( 7 ) MEANWHILE the Additional District Magistrate, Jhansi, who was approached by Inspector Lal chand, deputed Sri M. M. Agarwal, a first class Magistrate to supervise the trap which was to be laid. Sri Lal Chand and the Magistrate came to the railway garden and from behind some bushes they heard the conversation of the labourers. Sri Agarwal had also called
