Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF ALLAHABAD
H. C. P. Tripathi, J.
GOPAL KRISHNA - Appellant
Versus
STATE - Respondents
Criminal Appeal 1041 Of 1962
Decided On : 12/16/1963
PREVENTION OF CORRUPTION ACT - SECTION 5(1)(D) - SECTION 5(2) - INDIAN PENAL CODE - SECTION 161 - PUBLIC SERVANT - BRIBE - DEMAND AND ACCEPTANCE - EVIDENCE - CORROBORATION - TRAP CASE - IMPROPRIETY OF INVESTIGATING OFFICER ACTING AS WITNESS - IRREGULARITY - WEIGHT OF EVIDENCE - BENEFIT OF DOUBT.
Fact of the Case:
Appellant, a Marketing Inspector, was convicted under Section 161 IPC and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act for demanding and accepting a bribe of Rs. 200 from the complainant, a foodgrains dealer, for not taking action against him for maintaining incorrect accounts. The prosecution case was based on the testimony of the complainant, the Complaints Officer, and two recovery witnesses.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution evidence was not reliable and did not establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The court noted that the Complaints Officer, who was a highly interested witness, had acted improperly by investigating the case himself and also testifying as a witness. The court also found that the statements of the complainant and the recovery witnesses were full of contradictions and improbabilities.
Issues: 1. Whether the appellant demanded and accepted a bribe from the complainant. 2. Whether the prosecution evidence was reliable and sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 3. Whether the impropriety of the Complaints Officer in investigating the case and testifying as a witness vitiated the trial.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution evidence did not establish that the appellant had demanded or accepted a bribe from the complainant. The court found that the statements of the complainant and the recovery witnesses were full of contradictions and improbabilities, and that the conduct of the appellant was not consistent with the prosecution's case. 2. The court held that the impropriety of the Complaints Officer in investigating the case and testifying as a witness did not vitiate the trial, but it did affect the weight of his evidence. 3. The court held that the prosecution had failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore the appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, the convictions and sentences of the appellant were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted.
( 1 ) APPELLANT Gopal Krishna has filed this appeal against his convictions under Section 161 I. P. C. and under Section 5 (1) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act recorded by the Special Judge, Aligarh. Appellant has been sentenced to one years rigorous imprisonment for each of the two offences, and, both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
( 2 ) IN May 1961 the appellant and one Mangal Sen were posted as Marketing Inspector and senior Marketing Inspector respectively at Aligarh and in their capacity as such public servants, they used to check the accounts or stocks of the licencees of foodgrains for ensuring the proper observance of the provisions of the U. P. Foodgrains Dealers Licencing Order, 1959. Both of them were prosecuted for having committed offences under Section 161 I. P. C. and the appellant was also charged under Section 5 (i) (d) read with Section 5 (2) of the Prevention of Corruption act (Act II of 1947) while Mangal Sen was further charged under Section 165-A, I. P. C. and were tried together by the learned Special Judge of Aligarh who gave benefit of doubt to Mangal sen but convicted the appellant as indicated above,
( 3 ) THE prosecution case lies in a short com pass.
( 4 ) THERE is a partnership firm M/s. Naubat Ram Chandrapal owned by two brothers Naubat Ram and Chandrapal, at Aligarh, which holds licence for dealing in foodgrains and vanaspati ghee. The shop and godown of the firm is situate in Mohalla Mahabirganj. Satya Prakash (P. W.) was the Munim of the firm. This firm was also a wholesale dealer and it Used to maintain regular account of its dealings and also a stock register. On 18-5-1961 at about 10. 30 A. M. the appellant and Mangal Ram, Senior Marketing Inspector inspected the shop of this firm and verified the actual stock in its godown with reference, to its stock registers They found 68 bags of rice which had been shown the stock register of the firm as pledged with the bank and out of their possession present in the godown and within their possession. Chandrapal, his brother Naubat ram and their Munim Satya Prakash were present at the time of the inspection and tried to explain this divergence between the stock of rice as found in the godown and the relevant entries in the stock register, as the result of a bona fide mistake which they admitted to have committed in making a wrong entry in the stock register, and begged to be excused. The appellant and his colleague directed them not to sell the rice without obtaining their prior permission and also obtained a writing (Ex. Ka 1) to this effect from Chandrapal. Mangal Sen then took the stock register in his possession along with the writing given by Chandrapal, and, when Chandrapal entreated him again to excuse them for their mistake in making wrong entries in the register, Mangal Sen told him that it was not a minor affair and he could be sent to jail for the offence committed by them. He asked Chandrapal to see him at his house in the evening at about 6 P. M. , and then both of them left the shop along with the stock register and the writing (Ex. Ka 1) given by Chandrapal.
( 5 ) CHANDRAPAL, as desired, went to the house of Mangal Sen in Mohalla Raghubirpur the same evening at 6 P. M. He found Mangal Sen and the appellant present there. He again requested them to excuse him and again received the same reply from Mangal Sen that it was not a minor affair and he could be sent to jail. Chandrapal requested Mangal Sen to return the writing and the register whereupon Mangal Sen said that they could be returned only if he could pay him Rs. 200/ -. Chandrapal asked the amount to be reduced but Mangal Sen did not agree. Chandrapal told Mangal Sen that he had not brought the necessary amount but will pay him the same at his shop on the next day between 11 and 11. 30 A. M. if he could come there.
( 6 ) NEXT morning, on 19-5-1961, Chandrapal went to the residence of the District Magistrat
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
