1956 (3) TMI 37 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Applicability of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act.
2. Definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act.
3. Legitimacy of trap cases in corruption investigations.
4. Role and involvement of the appellant, Gian Chand.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Applicability of Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellants were charged under Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code for criminal conspiracy to cause the offence of criminal misconduct punishable under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The court examined the language of Section 5, noting that it creates a new offence of criminal misconduct by a public servant, punishable with imprisonment up to seven years or with fine, or both. The court emphasized that the offence under Section 5(1)(d) includes obtaining any valuable thing or pecuniary advantage by corrupt or illegal means or by otherwise abusing one's position as a public servant. The argument that the Act creates an offence distinct from simple bribery was acknowledged but rejected, as the court found that the language of the statute supports an overlapping of offences, including bribery. The court concluded that the appellants' actions fell within the scope of Section 5(1)(d).

2. Definition of "public servant" under the Prevention of Corruption Act:
The appellants argued that Madan Lal was not a "public servant" within the meaning of the Act. The court referred to Section 137 of the Indian Railways Act, which, before its amendment in 1955, limited the definition of railway servants as public servants only for the purposes of Chapter IX of the Indian Penal Code. However, the amended Act included all railway servants as public servants under the Prevention of Corruption Act. The court concluded that Madan Lal, being a railway servant, was indeed a "public servant" under the Act.

3. Legitimacy of trap cases in corruption investigations:
The appellants contended that trap cases should be discouraged as they create opportunities for offences to be committed. The court considered the opinion of Lord Goddard, C.J., in Brennan v. Peek, which expressed concerns about police officers committing offences to gather evidence. However, the court did not adopt an absolute rule against traps, recognizing their necessity in detecting corruption. The court condemned situations where police supply bribe money but did not find this case merited lenient or nominal sentences due to the trap.

4. Role and involvement of the appellant, Gian Chand:
The appellant Gian Chand argued that he was merely a munim of a firm and not involved in the bribery attempt. However, the court found clear evidence from Labhu Ram and Madan Lal that Gian Chand participated in discussions and actions related to the bribe. Labhu Ram testified that all three accused, including Gian Chand, were involved in offering the bribe to hush up the case. This was corroborated by Madan Lal, who confirmed that all three accused jointly requested him to accept the bribe. The court concluded that Gian Chand's involvement was on par with the other appellants and upheld his conviction and sentence.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court upheld the convictions and sentences of all appellants, confirming that Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act was applicable, Madan Lal was a "public servant," trap cases were legitimate under the circumstances, and Gian Chand was equally involved in the bribery attempt. The appeal was rejected.