Back
HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
B.P. SINGH, J.
Shyam Bihari Sharma - Appellant
Versus
State Of U. P. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 3344 of 1979
Decided on : Dec 10, 1991
CRIMINAL LAW - CORRUPTION - PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(2) - EVIDENCE - TRAP WITNESSES - RELIABILITY - PHENOLPHTHALEIN POWDER TREATMENT - ABSENCE OF - EFFECT - CORROBORATION - NECESSITY - PUBLIC HOLIDAY - OFFICE CLOSED - MEETING WITH ACCUSED - IMPROBABILITY - APPEAL - ALLOWANCE.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, a clerk in the Basic Shiksha Parishad, Jhansi, was accused of demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 100 from the complainant, Laxmi Prasad Sharma, for revoking the suspension order of his daughter-in-law, Smt. Shanti Devi, and for helping in her subsequent transfer posting. A trap was laid by the Vigilance Department and the appellant was caught red-handed while accepting the bribe. The trial court convicted the appellant under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the IPC and sentenced him to one year's RI and six months' RI, respectively, to run concurrently.
Finding of the Court:
The High Court allowed the appeal and acquitted the appellant. The court held that the evidence of the trap witnesses was unreliable and could not be relied upon. The court noted that the complainant's son had a grudge against the appellant and it was quite possible that the appellant was implicated falsely in the case. The court also noted that the appellant was caught red-handed on a public holiday when the office was closed, which was highly improbable. The court further noted that the hundred rupee note in question was not treated with phenolphthalein powder, which cast doubt on the trap itself.
Issues: 1. Whether the evidence of the trap witnesses was reliable and could be relied upon. 2. Whether the appellant was implicated falsely in the case. 3. Whether the appellant was caught red-handed on a public holiday when the office was closed. 4. Whether the hundred rupee note in question was treated with phenolphthalein powder.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The evidence of the trap witnesses was unreliable and could not be relied upon. The court noted that the complainant's son had a grudge against the appellant and it was quite possible that the appellant was implicated falsely in the case. The court also noted that the appellant was caught red-handed on a public holiday when the office was closed, which was highly improbable. 2. The appellant was caught red-handed on a public holiday when the office was closed, which was highly improbable. 3. The hundred rupee note in question was not treated with phenolphthalein powder, which cast doubt on the trap itself.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed and the appellant was acquitted.
B.P. Singh
1. This is an appeal against the judgment and order dated 7th December, 1979 passed by Sri B. K. Jain, Special Judge, Jhansi in Special Case no. 3 of 1977 State v. Shyam Behari under section 161 IPC and section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, P. S. Nawabad, District Jhansi.
2. The case of the prosecution, as has been unfolded in the evidence of Suraj Prasad (PW 1) and Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2), may briefly be stated as follow.
Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) is a resident of Uldan and was a teacher in Jawahar Lal Nehru High School, Utdan during the year 1976-77. Smt.Shanti Devi, the daughter in law of Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) was employed as an Assistant Teacher in Barua Sagar Primary School. Smt.Shanti Devi's husband, Arvind Kumar, was a lecturer in Ram Sahai Inter College, Barua Sagar.
3. Smt. Shanti Devi was placed under suspension by the authorities concerned with effect from 6-5-1976. On 13th May, 1976 Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) came to the office of the District Basic Shiksha Prishad and met the accussed Shyam Behari Sharma at about 2.00-2.30 p. m. The accused, Shyam Behari Sharma, was the dealing clerk regarding transfer suspension etc, of the teachers in the Jhansi district. On being enquired about the reasons for Smt. Shanti Devi's suspension, the accused gave out that Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) should not bother about the grounds or reasons for suspension and that he (the accused) would get the matter set right if he was paid a sum of Rs. 300/- for the same. The accused further gave out that he would also help in the subsequent transfer posting of Smt. Shanti Devi but he would take Rs. 100/- as advance and balance of Rs. 200/- was to be paid on the completion of the job, Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) agreed to the proposal and promised to pay Rs. 100/- to the accused on 14-5-1976. The accused had then asked Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) to come to the Board Office on 14th May, 1976.
4. Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) came out of the Board Office and sat for sometime near the courts' crossing. In the meantime at about 4 p. m. his son, Arvind Kumar, happened to come there from the side of Barua Sagar. Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) discussed the proposal of the accused with his son. Arvind Kumar, Arvind Kumar then informed his father that in the past also the accused had demanded Rs. 500/- by way of bribe for getting Smt. Shanti Devi's transfer stayed from Uldan to Pachwara and that the accused must be dealt with strictly and he should be trapped in the act of accepting the bribe. Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) wanted to talk to Civil Police but his son, Arvind Kumar, informed him that S. P. (Vigilence) was camping in the Circuit House, Jhansi and the matter should be brought to the notice of S. P. (Vigilence). After this decision Arvind Kumar went away, LAXMI Prasad Sharma (PW 2) then wrote an application (Ex. ka 8), which was addressed to S. P. (Vigilence), for laying the trap relating to the demand of bribe by the accused.
Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) then went to Circuit House, Jhansi, and gave the application (Ex. ka 8) to S. P. (Vigilence) After reading the application (Ex. ka 8) S. P. (Vigilence) asked Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) to come on the next morning.
5. On 14th May, 1976 Laxi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) took a hundred rupee note with him and reached Circuit House, Jhansi at about 8.00-8. 30 a. m. Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) had to wait for sometime as S. P. (Vigilence) was busy in having his breakfast. In the meatime Suraj Prasad, Inspector (Vigilence) (PW 1) and Inspector Hari Nandan Singh had also reached there. After a short while S. P. (Vigilence) Uma Shankar (PW 7) called Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) and recorded his statement. The hundred rupee note was also examined by S. P. (Vigilence), Sri Uma Shankar (PW 7) and Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) was made to sign the statement. S. P. (Vigilence) (PW 7) had directed Laxmi Prasad Sharma (PW 2) to hand over this very note in bribe to the accused. The hundred r
AI
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
