1997 (12) TMI 635 - SC - Indian Laws

Acquittal of a government servant from graft charge - Held that - The reasoning of the High Court that reliability of the trap was impaired as the solution collected in the phial was not sent to chemical Examiner is too puerile for acceptance. We have not come across any case where a trap was conducted by the police in which the phenolphtalein solution was sent to the Chemical Examiner. We know that the said solution is always used not because there is any such direction by the statutory public servant would have really handled the bribed money. There is no material discrepancy in the evidence regarding preparation of recovery-memo and the minor contradiction mentioned by the learned single judge is not worth considering. No doubt that the High Court has misdirected itself by such patently wrong and tenuous considerations and it resulted in the unmerited acquittal of accused against whom the prosecution succeeded in making out a fool-proof case under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. Allow that state appeal and restore the conviction passed by the trial court.

Summary

Issues:
Government appeal against acquittal of government servant from graft charge.

Analysis:
The case involved a government servant who was initially convicted under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act 1947. The respondent was caught red-handed accepting a bribe of &8377; 400 from PW5 for an official act. The trial court convicted him, but he was later acquitted by a single judge of the Allahabad High Court upon appeal.

The High Court judge interfered with the conviction and sentence based on several reasons. The judge highlighted that the complainant, PW5, had a motive to falsely implicate the respondent due to prior eviction proceedings. The evidence of PW5 was not corroborated by independent witnesses, and there were contradictions in the testimonies of other witnesses. The judge also questioned the handling of evidence, such as the solution used for the phenolphthalein test.

The appellate court criticized the High Court's reasoning for acquitting the accused. It emphasized that the complainant's evidence should not be rejected solely based on his grievances against the accused. The court also analyzed the defense witnesses' testimonies, noting that they did not undermine the prosecution's case. The court highlighted the importance of considering the evidence of the Superintendent of Police, who arranged the trap, as crucial in such cases.

Furthermore, the court addressed the High Court's concerns regarding the lack of independent witnesses and the handling of evidence. It clarified that acquaintance with the police does not automatically discredit a witness's independence. The court emphasized the reliability of the trap set by the police and the significance of the evidence provided by the Superintendent of Police.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court allowed the government's appeal, overturning the acquittal and restoring the conviction. However, considering the time elapsed since the offense, the court imposed a reduced sentence of one year of rigorous imprisonment and a fine of &8377; 10,000. The court emphasized the strength of the prosecution's case and criticized the High Court's reasoning for the acquittal, ensuring that the accused faced legal consequences for the corruption charges.