Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
Net Ram – Appellant
Versus
State of U.P. – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 2187 of 1983
Decided On : 01-02-2023
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellants : K.G. Srivastava, Darwari Lal.
The central legal point established in the judgment is the application of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847, and the importance of evidence and corroboration in bribery cases.
Headnote:
Corruption - Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 - Section 5(2) - The judgment discusses the application of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 and the evidence presented to prove the bribery allegations.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, Net Ram, was convicted under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 for accepting illegal gratification. The case revolved around the appellant's alleged acceptance of a bribe while working as a tubewell operator in the Tubewell Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence presented by the defense witness and the five years register raised doubts about the appellant's involvement in the alleged bribery. As a result, the court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant and acquitted him of the charges.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the alleged bribery incident, the territory of the tubewell, and the lack of corroboration for the prosecution's version of events.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was influenced by the evidence presented by the defense witness and the lack of corroboration for the prosecution's version of events. The court extended the benefit of doubt to the appellant based on the evidence and acquitted him of the charges.
Final Decision: The judgment and order convicting the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charges. The appellant's bail bond was cancelled, and sureties discharged. The lower court records were directed to be transmitted for compliance and necessary action.
JUDGMENT :
SAMIT GOPAL, J.
1. The present appeal under Section 374 Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant Net Ram against the judgment and order dated 05.09.1983 passed by the Special Judge (VII Additional Special Judge), Bareilly in Special Case No. 7 of 1980 (State of U.P. vs. Net Ram) by which the accused appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1847 to one year rigorous imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 100/- in default of payment of fine to one month rigorous imprisonment, under Section 161 IPC to one year rigorous imprisonment, fine of Rs. 100/- and in default of payment of fine to one month rigorous imprisonment. The sentences of imprisonment have been ordered to run concurrently but the total amount of fine ordered to be paid is Rs. 200/- under both the counts and the default sentence is also ordered to run consequently.
2. The allegation against the appellant is that on 15.12.1978 at about 11:30 am he while being posted as a tubewell operator in the Tubewell Department, Government of Uttar Pradesh and working in Village Satuia Khas, Police Station Fatehganj West, District Bareilly accepted Rs. 30/- cash as illegal gratification from Puran Lal Yaduvanshi PW-2 (the original complainant) for not making an entry of irrigation for him in the government records.
3. The records of the trial court were burnt in an incident of fire in the building of the Judgeship of Bareilly in the night of 18/19.11.1979 after which a letter was written to the Deputy Superintendent of Police, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly requesting him to send a duplicate case diary. The said letter is Exb. Ka-18 to the records. A list of documents relating to the case which had been destroyed due to fire was also proved which is Exb. Ka-19 to the records. The relevant records were reconstructed on the basis of duplicate case diary maintained by Anti-Corruption Department which was proved by Badri Narayan Sharma PW-4 who is the DSP, Anti-Corruption, Bareilly. The secondary evidence was admitted due to loss of primary evidence in the said incident of fire. The factum of fire was stated by Nabi Sher Khan PW-7 the Clerk of DGC (Criminal) that the documents were kept at the place provided to the DGC (Criminal) in the building of Bareilly Judgeship.
4. As per prosecution case, Puran Lal Yaduvanshi PW-2 got irrigated his agricultural land from tubewell No. 32 of which the accused appellant was supervisor in the night of 11.12.1978. On 12.12.1978 the accused appellant came to the field of Puran Lal at about 04:00 pm and demanded illegal gratification of Rs. 30/- as water was supplied from his tubewell No. 32. The same was refused by Puran Lal. The accused appellant again came to him on 13.12.1978 and demanded money again and threatened him that if he does not give him the said money he would enter Rs. 100/- as charges in the irrigation records which would have to be paid by him. Puran Lal agreed to pay the said money on 15.12.1978. On 14.12.1978 Puran Lal gave a written complaint to DSP (Vigilance), Anti-Corruption regarding the same. The said complaint is Exb. Ka-7 to the records. The said Officer recorded the statement of Puran Lal which is Exb. Ka-8 to the records. He wanted to get the accused appellant arrested while taking money. The proceedings of trap started and currency notes were taken and numbers were recorded after which initials were put on them and were returned to Puran Lal with the direction to him to meet on 15.12.1978 at 08:00 am at the turning of Shahi Road of Fatehganj West. On 15.12.1978 B.P. Sharma PW-4 accompanied by police officials went to Fatehganj West near Shahi Road at about 08:00 am and met the original complainant. They travelled from Bareilly in a jeep and picked up the original complainant and proceeded towards Rampur Road and reached the brick kiln of Prem Singh where Takan Singh and Indrapal Singh were taken as witnesses. The said currency notes were treated with phenolphthalein
