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

2007 Supreme(Raj) 1148

Supreme Court
Honble C.K. THAKKER, J. Honble TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
Girja Prasad (Dead) By Lrs. - Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2002
Decided On : August 27, 2007

Advocates Appeared:
Shiv Sagar Tiwari, for Appellant C.D. Singh, Merusagar Samantaray, Sunny Chowdhary and Vairagya Vardhar, for Respondent

Headnote:(a) Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947, Sec. 4, 5(1)(d), 5(2); Penal Code, Sec. 161 (Since repealed); Prevention of Corruption Act, 1988, Sec. 20 and Sec. 13(1)(d) and Sec. 13(2) – Presumption u/Sec. 4 of 1947 Act regarding acceptance of illegal gratification – Rebuttal of said presumption – Once it is proved that the amount has been received by the accused the presumption get attracted – It is immaterial whether the acceptance of amount was for him or for someone else and whether the accused was or was not in a position to oblige the complainant – Accused can rebut the presumption by leading evidence – Held – Accused failed to rebut the presumption as he was not able to adduce any evidence – conviction upheld.(Paras 20 to 23)(b) Cr.P.C., 1973, Sec. 386 and 378 and Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 101, 103 – Appeal against acquittal – Appreciation of evidence – Power of appellate Court to reappreciate and weigh the evidence and come to its own conclusion – Held – The appellate court can reappreciate and reweigh the evidence as a whole and to come to its own conclusion on such evidence in consonance with the principles of criminal jurisprudence. (Paras 21, 28, 31)(c) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 3, 114 and 4 – Police witness – Conviction solely based on the basis of testimony of police officials – No infirmity attached to the testimony of police officials merely because they belong to police force – Held – There is no rule of law that no conviction can be made on the testimony of police officials – If the court is convinced that what was stated by a witness has a ring of truth, conviction can be based on such evidence. (Para 25)

       

Honble THARRER, J.–The present appeal was filed by appellant Girja Prasad (since deceased) against the judgment and final order passed by the High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Jabalpur on April 17, 2002 in Criminal Appeal No. 1070 of 1989. By the said judgment, the High Court set aside an order of acquittal recorded by the II Addl. District & Sessions Judge, Jabalpur on March 15, 1989 in Special Criminal Case No. 40 of 1985 and convicted the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code (`IPC for short) and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 (hereinafter referred to as `the Act) and ordered him to undergo simple imprisonment for four months and to pay fine of Rs.200/- for the offence under Section 161, IPC. No separate sentence, however, was awarded to him for offence under the Prevention of Corruption Act.

(2). Shortly stated, the facts are that the appellant (Girja Prasad) was working as Lower Division Clerk (LDC) in the Office of Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur. It was the case of the prosecution that on September 20, 1983, Ramanarain Rajoria, Divisional Ayurved Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur Division, Jabalpur (PW 4) paid surprise visit to Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya, Dindori, District Mandla and found that several members of the staff were absent including the Ayurvedic Chikitsak himself. Consequently, he locked the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya and returned to Jabalpur. Ramnarain Rajoria was accompanied by the accused Girja Prasad Gupta. On September 27, 1983, the complainant Anup Kumar (PW 1) came to Jabalpur and informed to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari that he was on casual leave from September 7, 1983 to September 11, 1983. He also stated that he had submitted an application for extension of leave upto September 23, 1983 but the same was not available in the Office of Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari, Jabalpur. On the same day, the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari went to Dindori and opened the lock of the Ayurvedic Chikitsalaya. It is alleged that PW 4- Ramnarain Rajoria asked the complainant that either he should pay an amount of Rs.500/- through accused Girja Prasad or should suffer suspension. The case of the prosecution was that Anup Kumar paid Rs.300/- on the same day to accused Girja Prasad at Dindori and assured him to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- on October 5, 1983 at Jabalpur.

(3). According to the prosecution, PW1- complainant Anup Kumar was not willing to pay the remaining amount of Rs.200/- to the Divisional Ayurvedic Chikitsa Adhikari. He, therefore, lodged a complaint in writing in the office of Lokayukt at Jabalpur. In the said complaint, it was stated that the complainant wanted the corrupt officer to be caught red- handed. One J.M. Wadhwa (PW 8), an Assistant Engineer from P.H.E.D., a Gazetted Officer agreed to act as trap witness. The complainant and Wadhwa were asked to come on the next day i.e. on October 5, 1983 for arranging a trap. Accordingly, on October 5, 1983, the complainant Anup Kumar reached the Office of Lokayukt at 11.00 a.m. He was asked to bring the accused in a hotel so that he may be caught red-handed accepting the bribe. Two currency notes of Rs.100/- denomination each were kept in the pocket of the complainant duly treated with chemical powder and he was informed about the special signal after giving bribe to the accused, so that the accused can be caught. The complainant got back to the Lokayukt Office and informed the trap-party that the accused had promised to come to Narmada Restaurant at 5.00 p.m.

(4). At 5.00 p.m., the complainant came with the accused in the restaurant and sat near the table of Wadhwa, panch witness, who was intimated about the currency notes treated with chemical powder. The accused then asked the complainant as to whether he had brought the amount. The complainant replied in the affirmative, took out two currency notes with his ri

















































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