1975 (10) TMI 110 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Legality of the conviction under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947.
2. Reliability of the evidence presented by the prosecution.
3. Involvement and complicity of the appellant in the demand and acceptance of the bribe.
4. Conduct and credibility of the raiding party and the Deputy Superintendent of Police.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Legality of the Conviction:
The appellant, a clerk in the Land Record office, and a peon named Ram Narain were convicted by the Sessions Judge, Kotal, for offences under Section 161 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 5(1)(d) read with Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. They were accused of obtaining a bribe of Rs. 10 from Dhanna Lal for issuing an early copy of land records. The High Court of Rajasthan upheld the conviction but reduced the sentence. The appellant appealed to the Supreme Court.

2. Reliability of the Evidence:
The prosecution's case relied heavily on the testimonies of Dhanna Lal and Ram Nath, who claimed that Ram Narain demanded a bribe on behalf of the appellant. However, the Court noted several inconsistencies and discrepancies in their statements. For instance, Dhanna Lal initially stated he gave the application for a certified copy to the appellant but later retracted, admitting he did not know the clerk's name. Additionally, the copying fee paid was Rs. 1 for an ordinary copy, not Rs. 2 for an urgent copy, contradicting Dhanna Lal's claim.

3. Involvement and Complicity of the Appellant:
The Court found no direct evidence linking the appellant to the bribe demand. On both days when the bribe was allegedly demanded (29th and 30th March 1967), there was no direct communication between the appellant and Dhanna Lal or Ram Nath. The demand was made solely by Ram Narain. The Court considered the possibility that Ram Narain acted independently to extract money without the appellant's knowledge. The evidence suggested that the appellant was unaware of Ram Narain's actions.

4. Conduct and Credibility of the Raiding Party and the Deputy Superintendent of Police:
The raiding party's actions and the Deputy Superintendent of Police's conduct raised doubts about the prosecution's case. The Deputy Superintendent claimed he could not see the verandah where the alleged transaction took place, contradicting his earlier statement that the verandah was clearly visible from his position. Head Constable Uma Shanker's testimony also conflicted with the Deputy Superintendent's account. The Court found it suspicious that the Deputy Superintendent did not arrest or question the appellant despite Ram Narain's immediate statement implicating the appellant.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court concluded that the prosecution failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant demanded or accepted a bribe. The evidence was insufficient and unreliable, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. The conviction and sentence were set aside, and the appellant's bail bonds were canceled.