IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
Seth, J.
ABDAL AHMAD - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Revision 1551 Of 1949
Decided On : 11/20/1950
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT, 1947 - SECTION 5 (2) - CRIMINAL TRIAL - BAR OF SECTION 403, CRIMINAL PROCEDURE CODE - RULE OF AUTREFOIS ACQUIT OR AUTREFOIS CONVICT - CONSTRUCTION OF SECTION 5 (1) (D) OF THE ACT - GENERALIA SPECIALIBUS NON DEROGANT - VAGUENESS OF CHARGE - EVIDENCE.
Fact of the Case:
The applicant, a Second Officer at a police station, was accused of receiving illegal gratification from two individuals, Nathu Ram and Babu Ram, in exchange for releasing them from police custody. The prosecution alleged that the applicant had received Rs. 50 at Bahraol and Rs. 60 at Mainpuri. The applicant denied the allegations and claimed that the money was offered to him as a bribe, which he refused. He was convicted by the Assistant Sessions Judge and the conviction was upheld by the Sessions Judge.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court found that the trial of the applicant was not barred by Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code or by any other rule of natural justice. The Court also rejected the applicant's contention that Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be construed as excluding from its purview offences provided for by the Penal Code. The Court further held that the rule of generalia specialibus non derogant did not apply in this case, as the offences under the Act and the Penal Code were distinct. Finally, the Court found that the charge framed against the applicant was not vague and did not prejudice him in any way.
Issues: 1. Whether the trial of the applicant was barred by Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code or by any other rule of natural justice? 2. Whether Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be construed as excluding from its purview offences provided for by the Penal Code? 3. Whether the rule of generalia specialibus non derogant applies in this case? 4. Whether the charge framed against the applicant was vague and prejudiced him in any way?
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The Court held that the trial of the applicant was not barred by Section 403 of the Criminal Procedure Code because the offences under the Act and the Penal Code were distinct and the applicant could be tried for both offences under Section 26 of the General Clauses Act. 2. The Court rejected the applicant's contention that Section 5 (1) (d) of the Prevention of Corruption Act should be construed as excluding from its purview offences provided for by the Penal Code, holding that the legislature intended to make such acts offences under both the Act and the Penal Code. 3. The Court held that the rule of generalia specialibus non derogant did not apply in this case because the offences under the Act and the Penal Code were distinct. 4. The Court found that the charge framed against the applicant was not vague and did not prejudice him in any way.
Final Decision: The High Court allowed the application in revision, set aside the conviction and sentence of the applicant, and ordered his acquittal.
( 1 ) THIS is an application in revision against the appellate order of the Ses. J. of Mainpuri, dated 19-9-1949, by which he has maintained the conviction of the applicant under Section 5 (2), prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (II [2] of 1947), hereinafter referred to as the Act.
( 2 ) THE prosecution case may briefly be recapitulated thus: applicant Abdal Ahmad wag posted as Second Officer at thana Kotwali, Mainpuri, on 4-9 1947, when a first information report was lodged there by Deoki Nandan against Nathu Ram, Babu ram and six others, accusing them of an offence punishable under Section 504, Penal Code, alleged to have been committed at village Pindsara. Two days later, that is, on 6. 9. 1947, another first information report was lodged by Deoki Nandans brother, Chet Earn Patwari, at the same police station. Ghet Bam reported that an offence of theft under Section 380, Penal Code had occurred at his residence in Mainpuri and expressed his suspicions against Baghubir Singh and the aforesaid Baba Ram. The investigation of the offence under Section 380, Penal Code, was entrusted to the applicant, who, having commenced it at Mainpuri, decided to pursue it further at pindaara. Accordingly, he visited that village on 7. 9. 1947. Ha sent for Nathu Ram and Babu Ram and told them that two reports had been lodged against them and that the investigation had been entrusted to him. While returning from Pindsara to Mainpuri the applicant brought with him nathu Ram and Babu Ram as far as village Bahraol, which lies on the way from Pindsara to mainpuri. At Bahraol the applicant told Nathu Ram and Babu Ram that they would be put to much trouble and harassment (per bar hoge) and would not be allowed to go unless they paid him a sum of rs. 110, Rs. 100 for himself and Rs. 10 for his sipahis. Nathu Ram and Babu Ram had some small amount with them. They borrowed Rs. 31 and thus managed to pay Rs. 50 to the applicant at bahraol. They were released and allowed to go back home only when they had paid this amount of rs. 50 to the applicant and had made a promise to pay the balance, namely, Rs. 60 at Mainpuri at an early date. On 10-9-1947, Nathu Bam saw the District Magistrate of Mainpuri and narrated to him what had taken place at Pindsara and Bahraol and told him that he (Nathu Bam) had brought with him currency notes for Rs. 60 for payment to the applicant and that he intended to make the payment that very day. The District Magistrate recorded the statement of Nathu Bam, noted the numbers of the currency notes which Nathu Ram proposed to hand over to the applicant and wrote out a slip to the Superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, requiring him to arrest the applicant if he accepted the notes. He deputed a First Class Mag. , Shri Gyan Swarup Gupta, to witness the acceptance or the recovery of the amount, as the case may be, and sent the complainant and Shri gupta to the Superintendent of Police with the slip. The future programme was left to be arranged by them. A party consisting of Shri Gupta, Shti Satva Narain Singh, the Deputy superintendent of Police, Mainpuri, Nathu Ram, Babu Ram, Udaibir Singh and Puran Singh proceeded after dusk to the quarter of the applicant, which stands within the compound of the kotwali. After having reached near the gate of the Kotwali, Shri Gupta asked Nathu Ram and babu Ram to proceed ahead and the rest of the party waited on the street in a covered ekka. They had waited for about 15 minutes when information was brought to them by Babu Ram that Nathu ram was handing over the money to the applicant. On receipt of this information they immediately proceeded towards the quarter of the applicant and as soon as they had crossed the purdah wall in front of the house of the applicant and could see him and Nathu Ram, the Deputy superintendent of Police flashed his torch on the person of the applicant. In this flash of light the applicant was seen holding the currency notes in his hand and throwing them on the grou
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.