BADRI RAI & ANOTHER versus THE STATE OF BIHAR

Citation: [1959] 1 S.C.R. 1141 · Decided: 18-08-1958 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: BHUVNESHWAR PRASAD SINHA · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

• 
-· 
' 
S.C.R. 
I 
• 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
BADRI RAI & ANOTHER 
v. 
THE STATE OF BIHAR 
(B. P. SINHA and JAFER IMAM JJ.) 
1141 
Evidence-Conspiracy to bribe a public servant-Statements of 
co-conspirator-When admissible against others-Indian Penal Code 
(Act 45 of I86o), ss. I20B, I65A-Indian Evidence Act (I of I872), 
s. IO. 
The appellants were prosecuted on charges under s. 120B 
read with s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code, for having conspired 
to commit the offence of bribing a public servant in connection 
with the discharge of his public duties. The case against them 
was that on August 24, 1953, when the Inspector of Police who 
was in charge of the investigation of a case in which the second 
appellant was involved, was on his way to the police station, the 
appellants accosted him on the road and the second appellant 
asked him to hush up the case for valuable consideration. Some 
days later, on August 31 the first appellant offered to the Inspec-
tor at the police station a packet containing Rs. 500 in currency 
notes and told him;that the second appellant had sent the money 
through him in pursuance of the talk that they had with him on 
August 24, as a consideration for hushing up the case. The 
courts below accepted the evidence adduced. on behalf of the 
prosecution and convicted the appell-.:tnts. 
On appeal by special 
leave it was contended that the court had no reasonable grounds 
to believe that the appellants had entered into a conspiracy to 
commit the offence and that the statement of Augu~t 31 was not 
admissible against the second appellant because (1) the charge 
under s. r20B had been deliberately added in order that the act 
or statement of the one would be admissible against the other, 
and (2) the object of the conspiracy, namely the payment of the 
hush money, had lbeen accomplished before the statement in 
question W'as madb : 
Held, (1) that the incident of August 24 was evidence that 
the intention to commit the offence had been entertained by 
both the appellants on or before that date showing a clear indi-
cation of the existence of the conspiracy, and that the statement 
made by the first appellant on August 31 was admissible not 
only to prove that the second appellant had constituted the first 
appellant his agent in the perpetration of the crime but also to 
prove the existence of the conspiracy ; the court was therefore 
justified in drawing up the charge under s. 120B along with that 
under s. 165A of the Indian Penal Code. 
• 
• 
(2) that the payment of the bribe and the statement of 
August 31 accompanying it,\ were part of the same transaction, ' 
having been made in the course of the conspiracy, and the 
• 
August z8. 
• 
Bndri Rai 
v. 
l 
• 
1142 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1959) 
statement in question was therefore admissible under s. 10 of 
the Indian Evidence Act. 
State of Bihar 
Mirza Akbar v. The King Emperor, (r940) L. R. 67 I. A. 336 
and R. v. Blake, (r844) 6 Q. B. r26, relied on. 
Sinha J. 
• 
CRIMINAL 
APPELLATE 
JURISDICTION: 
Criminal 
Appeal No. 79 of 1956. 
Appeal by special leave from the judgment and 
order dated September 7, 1955, of the Patna High 
Court in Criminal Appeal No. 370 of 1954, arising out 
.of the judgment and order dated July 26, 1954, of 
the Court of the Special Judge at Bhagalpur in Special 
Case No. 14 of 1954. 
B. R. L. Iyengar, for appellant No. I. 
S. P. Sinha and P. G. Agarwala, for appellant 
No. 2. 
R. C. Prasad, for the respondent. 
1958. August 18. The Judgment of the Court was 
delivered by 
• 
SINHA J.-This appeal by special leave is directed 
against the concurrent judgments and orders of the 
courts below, convicting the two appellants under 
s. 120B read with s. 165A, Indian Penal Code, and 
sentencing, them to rigorous imprisonment for 18 
months, and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each, and in 
default of payment of fine, to undergo further rigorous 
imprisonment for 6 months. A separate conviction· 
under s. l 65A has been recorded in respect of the first 
appellant, Badri. Under this head, he has peen sen-
tenced to rigorous imprisonment for 18 months, the 
sentence to run concurrently with the sentence under 
the common charge. 
The facts as found by the courts below, which could 
not be successfully challenged before us, are as follows : 
The second appellant, Ramji Sonar, is a goldsmith 
by profession and runs a shop on the main road in the 
village N aogachia. In that village there is a police 
station and the shop in q

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.