1954 (3) TMI 63 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether appeal was to be heard on the merits? Held that - The independence of the judiciary is a priceless treasure to be cherished and safeguarded at all costs against predatory activities of this character and it is of the essence that public confidence in the independence of ,the judiciary should not be undermined by any such tactics adopted by the executive authorities. We have therefore eliminated from our consideration the whole of the evidence given by Shanti Lal Ahuja, the Additional District Magistrate, and come to our conclusion in regard to the guilt of the appellant No. I relying solely on the testimony of the two independent witnesses Gadkari and Perulakar. The result therefore is that the appeal of the appellant No. 1 will be dismissed except with regard to his conviction and sentence, under section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and the convictions and sentences passed upon him by the Judicial Commissioner under section 465 and section 466 as also section 161 of the Indian Penal Code will be confirmed. The appeal of the appellant No. 2 will be allowed and he be acquitted -and discharged of the offences with which he was charged and immediately set at liberty. The bail bond of the appellant No. 2 will be cancelled.

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Competence of the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner.
2. Infringement of fundamental rights under Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution.
3. Legitimacy of the evidence and the role of police authorities.
4. Admissibility of statements made during the investigation.
5. Conviction and sentencing of the appellants under various sections of the Indian Penal Code.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Competence of the Appeal to the Judicial Commissioner:
The Supreme Court's Constitution Bench previously ruled that the appeal to the Judicial Commissioner from the acquittal by the Special Judge was competent. This decision was delivered on May 22, 1953, and it was determined that there was no infringement of the fundamental rights of the appellants under Articles 14 and 20 of the Constitution.

2. Infringement of Fundamental Rights under Articles 14 and 20:
The Constitution Bench held that the appeal process did not infringe upon the fundamental rights of the appellants. This ruling was crucial in allowing the case to proceed on its merits before the Supreme Court.

3. Legitimacy of the Evidence and the Role of Police Authorities:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the evidence provided by Nagindas, police witnesses, and the Additional District Magistrate, Shanti Lal Ahuja. The Supreme Court criticized the police authorities for their excessive zeal in entrapping the appellant No. 1 by providing the bribe money to Nagindas. The Court expressed strong disapproval of this practice, stating that it is the duty of the police to prevent crimes, not to facilitate their commission by supplying the instruments of the offence.

4. Admissibility of Statements Made During the Investigation:
The Court ruled that the statement made by appellant No. 1 to Shanti Lal Ahuja was inadmissible under Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, as it was made during the investigation and not recorded according to Section 164. The Court emphasized that any statement made during an investigation must be recorded as per the specified legal provisions to be admissible.

5. Conviction and Sentencing of the Appellants:
- Appellant No. 1: The evidence of independent witnesses Gadkari and Perulakar was deemed credible and admissible. Their testimony established that the appellant No. 1 claimed the Rs. 25,000 found in his possession as his own, which contradicted his previous statements. The Court confirmed the conviction of appellant No. 1 under Sections 465, 466, and 161 of the Indian Penal Code but dismissed the conviction under Section 120-B.
- Appellant No. 2: The appeal of appellant No. 2 was allowed, and he was acquitted and discharged of all charges. The Court ordered his immediate release and cancellation of his bail bond.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction and sentences of appellant No. 1 under Sections 465, 466, and 161 of the Indian Penal Code, while acquitting appellant No. 2 of all charges. The judgment emphasized the importance of adhering to legal procedures during investigations and condemned the involvement of judicial officers in police traps, reiterating the necessity of maintaining the independence and impartiality of the judiciary.