LexBANARSI DASS versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2010] 4 S.C.R. 383 BANARSI DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 630 of 2003) APRIL 5, 2010 [AFTAB ALAM AND SWATANTER KUMAR, JJ.] A B Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947 - s.5(2) - Penal Code, 1860 - s.161 - Essential ingredients of s.5(2) of the Act and s.161 /PC - Held: To constitute offence under s.5(2) C of the Act and s.161 /PC, prosecution has to prove demand and acceptance of. illegal gratification by the accused in discharge of official duties - Mere recovery of money would not lead to inference of such demand and acceptance - On facts, trap laid down and money recovered from pocket of D accused - Complainant and another prosecution witness however became hostile witnesses - In these circumstances, prosecution failed to establish the offence against the accused, that he accepted the money voluntarily as illegal gratification - Accused entitled to acquittal on technical E grounds. Administration of Criminal Justice: Conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference - Offence should be proved against the accused beyond F reasonable doubt - Criminal jurisprudence. Prosecution case was that the land belonging to the mother of PW-2 was wrongly recorded in the name of tenants. PW-2 approached the appellant who was posted as Patwari during relevant time for making the necessary G changes in the records. PW-2 also filed NOC obtained from the tenants. The appellant allegedly demanded illegal gratification of Rs.900 for making rectification in the records. The deal was finally struck at Rs.400 in the 383 H 384 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2010] 4 S.C.R. A presence of PW-4, a taxi driver who was hired by PW-2 while visiting the appellant. PW-2 reported the matter to police. Her statement was recorded and a trap was laid. PW-10, the SOM and PW-11, the DSP signed the four currency notes of Rs.100 each. PW-2 accompanied by B PW-4 left for Patwar-khana. She took Rs.400 duly signed by the officers to pay gratification to the Patwari. The money was given to the appellant and thereafter PW-4 informed PW-10 and PW-11. They rushed to the spot in a jeep. On search of the appellant, four signed currency c notes were recovered from the front left pocket of his shirt. Recovery memo for the same was prepared. The application of tenants was also found on the table of the appellant in Patwar-khana. After conclusion of the trap, the appellant was arrested and a case was registered 0 . under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention of Corruption Act, 1947. The prosecution examined four witnesses PW-2, PW- 4, PW-10 and PW-11. Out of. these material witnesses, PW-2 and PW-4 both were declared hostile. PW-2 stated E in her examination-in-chief that she apprehended that appellant wanted illegal gratification and for that reason he was not recording the change in Khasra Girdawaris in favour of her mother. She further stated that she had learnt from co-villagers that Rs.300-400/- as reward was F to be given for such a job. She also stated that she had signed the memos but she did not read them as she was confused. The Special Judge convicted the appellant under Section 161 IPC and under Section 5(2) of the Prevention G of Corruption Act, 1947 despite contradictions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. High Court upheld the order of conviction. Hence the appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court H / BANARSI DASS v. STATE OF HARYANA 385 HELD: 1.1. The High Court fell in error in drawing the A inference of demand and receipt of the illegal gratification from the fact that the money was recovered from the accused. It is a settled canon of criminal jurisprudence that the conviction of an accused cannot be founded on the basis of inference. The offence should be proved B against the accused beyond reasonable doubt either by direct evidence or even by circumstancial evidence if each link of the chain of events is established pointing towards the guilt of the accused. The prosecution has to lead cogent evidence in that regard. Applying these tests c to the facts of the present case, PW-10 and PW-11 were neither the eye-witnesses to the demand nor to the acceptance of money by the accused from PW-2. Both PW-2 and PW-4 made statements before the Court which were quite different. from the one made by them before 0 the police during the investigation. PW-4 completely denied the incident and refused to acknowledge. that
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.