9911796707
|
Home
Issues Involved:
1. Preliminary objection to the right of the appellant's widow to prosecute the appeal. 2. Application of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898. 3. Merits of the case regarding the conviction of Harnam Singh under the Prevention of Corruption Act and the Penal Code. Detailed Analysis: 1. Preliminary Objection to the Right of the Appellant's Widow to Prosecute the Appeal The State of Himachal Pradesh raised a preliminary objection, arguing that the substantive sentence of imprisonment abated with the death of Harnam Singh, and thus the appeal regarding the sentence of fine should also abate. The appellant's counsel contended that Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898, which deals with the abatement of appeals, does not apply to appeals filed in the Supreme Court. The Court examined Section 431, which states that appeals from a sentence of fine do not abate on the death of the appellant. The Court concluded that the appeal filed by Harnam Singh, involving a sentence of fine, does not abate and the widow is entitled to continue the appeal. 2. Application of Section 431 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1898 Section 431 states, "Every appeal under section 411A, subsection (2), or section 417 shall finally abate on the death of the accused, and every other appeal under this Chapter (except an appeal from a sentence of fine) shall finally abate on the death of the appellant." The Court clarified that Section 431 does not strictly apply to appeals filed under Article 136 of the Constitution but found no valid reason to apply different rules. The Court emphasized that an appeal involving a sentence of fine does not abate upon the appellant's death because the fine constitutes a liability on the deceased's estate. The Court also noted that the legality of the sentence of fine involves examining the validity of the conviction, thus allowing the widow to prosecute the appeal. 3. Merits of the Case Regarding the Conviction of Harnam Singh The High Court had confirmed Harnam Singh's conviction under Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act and Section 161 of the Penal Code, reducing the sentence to one year. The Supreme Court found the prosecution's evidence unsatisfactory and noted several discrepancies: - The main witnesses were deemed partisan, and the Panchas turned hostile. - The Investigating Officer, Kewal Ram, showed undue interest and misled the Magistrate to obtain permission to investigate. - The Panchnamas lacked details such as time and place, and usual precautions like applying anthracene powder were not taken. - There was a serious discrepancy in the evidence regarding where the marked notes were found. The Court concluded that the evidence was unreliable and the High Court failed to address these issues adequately. The Court also noted that the accused's evidence was not considered by the High Court. Given the broad probabilities and the unsatisfactory nature of the prosecution's evidence, the Court preferred the accused's version that the money was planted. The Court also addressed the violation of Section 5A of the Prevention of Corruption Act, noting that the permission granted to Kewal Ram was obtained without proper reasons, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. However, the Court found it unnecessary to pursue this point further as the conviction could not be upheld on merits. Conclusion The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the order of conviction, the substantive sentence, and the sentence of fine. The fine, if paid, was ordered to be refunded to the widow of the deceased appellant. The appeal was thus allowed, and the conviction was overturned.
|
